How long the artistic freedom of expression will have to be surrendered in the hands of fanatic crooks?
Justice
Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Delhi High Court in his landmark judgment passed on May 8, 2008 , described the word nude
as a "perennial art subject". Justice Kaul explaining some of the paintings
called as ’obscene’, ’vulgar’, ’depraving’, ’prurient’ and ’immoral’ said that,
it was important to look at art from the artist’s perspective.
The
famous Indian painter Maqbool Fida (M F) Hussain was driven into self-imposed
exile in Dubai and London
due to furor over his paintings among pro-Hindu radicals in 2007. The judgment
was passed against number of petitions filed by the 92-year-old Indian artist. Several
lawsuits were filed against Husain demanding prosecution over the nudity in his
art, for painting Hindu goddesses nude and depicting contours of India
in the shape of a nude female figure.
Art
is subjective and not a real life depiction. Artists should not have any
boundaries or restrictions, but the question of ‘art’ being ethically sensitive
to the common perspective of society still worries the creative minds. The self-restraint
in creating works of ‘art’ will definitely compromise with the artistic
creativity. The usual comparison between art and pornography is ridiculous.
Commenting
on Indian old heritage, Justice Kaul had said, “"Ancient Indian art has
been never devoid of eroticism where sex worship and graphical representation
of the union between man and woman has been a recurring feature.” Passing a judgment
on the controversial painting called ‘Bharat mata’, he said, "The
aesthetic touch to the painting dwarfs the so called obscenity in the form of
nudity and renders it so picayune and insignificant that the nudity in the
painting can easily be overlooked".
Freedom
of Expression is one of the fundamental principles of liberalism. The Indian Constitution
defines the term as "liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship" which is figured in our admirable preamble. Freedom of Expression
also recognizes the basic right of every human being, irrespective of color,
race, gender or status. With reference to ridiculous attacks on artists across
world, the ‘right’ has been under siege. The artist’s expression has been
ruined by certain groups in our society who, claim to speak for the majority.
Few lunatic individuals who claim to have the right to scrutinize the work of
artistic aesthetics, tend to forget that every artist has the right to express
his/her creativity.
There
have been many debates in the past that whether the State has the will to
protect the right to artistic truth and the right to critique. So far the law
has been fairly decent to the artist’s freedom of artistic expression. But surprisingly
in one of the only case in India ,
Supreme Court had banned the book, D. H. Lawerence's Lady Chatterly's Lover on
the ground of obscenity. The book was banned because of some facts about love
and relationship diligently explained. The ban leaves a question on the law and
on the existence of free democracy in this country.
Taslima Nasreen’s episode shakes the conscience of all of us who
believe in civilization. The reason for attack on the noted Bangladeshi writer
was that, she dared in her book, to
question the fundamental tenets of Islam, which places the women on a
different status in the name of Holy God — the Allah.
The
incident left with riots in Kolkata. After few weeks it followed with the shame
marked on the Indian government which couldn’t give protection to Taslima from
leaving the country for her safety.
Many
infamous incidents in pasts which have shattered the term ‘freedom of artistic
expression’ in India
have been from paintings to books to films. There has been many artistic pieces
which has been banned in past in India .
The books ‘The Satanic Verses’ by Salman Rushdie and ‘Understanding
Islam through Hadis’ by Ram Swarup has been banned fearing few fanatic Islamist
groups. On other hand, films like ‘Kama
Sutra: A Tale of Love’ (1996) directed by Mira Nair and ‘Fire’ (1996) directed
by Deepa Mehta saw several violent protests and attacks on movie theaters by
Hindu fundamentalists. Beside grounds of ‘sexuality’ & ‘religion’ there has
many artists who had to face humiliation due to their subjects based on
‘politics’. Probably the first ban on a film on political subject date’s back
to 1959, when a Bengali film ‘Neel Akasher Neechey’ was banned for two
years for explicit political implication which showed the troubles faced by an
immigrant Chinese wage laborer in 1930s in Calcutta.
People have been violent and vandalized art galleries, threatening
artists with dire consequences to issuing religious implications on artists. In
a free society which boasts of democracy, it is the Constitution that should be
the supreme law, not fatwas or declarations issued by cultural
vigilantes. The individual's right to freedom still remains vague in context to
recent bitter events which the artists have been tolerating.
