When the tele-serial Mahabharata captivated the nation with the power of performance and integrity of presentation, I noted that the forceful dialogues which captured the epic’s philosophical truths and psychological insights with unsurpassed perfection were penned by renowned Leftist, late Dr. Rahi Masoom Raza.
Like Muslim artisans who chisel murtis for Hindu temples, Dr. Raza had imbibed his Indian heritage in totality, studying its symbols, meanings, and deeper truths in the course of a long intellectual journey. Nothing else can explain the honesty of the words that captured the spirit of the epic and gripped the imagination of the people. Not since Mr. Mohammad Ali Jinnah ruptured the social and political fabric has a Muslim so mesmerized this nation.
Yet Dr. Raza was modest about his immense contribution to modern Hindu consciousness. Though his religious and political affiliations did not permit genuflection before a larger Indic identity, he sidelined both to delve the depths of Hindu metaphysics and give us a Hindi Mahabharata. This is not possible with a superficial acquaintance with the epic; the narrative hints at knowledge of Hindu mysticism.
Dr. Raza’s reverential treatment of another faith contrasts sharply with that of his co-religionists Mr. Salman Rushdie and Mr. M.F. Hussain, and Vadodara art student Chandramohan, whose religious affiliation has been carefully concealed by Hindu-baiters. The three exemplify intra- and inter-religious iconoclasm, backed by powerful religio-corporate interests. Mr. Rushdie received the West’s largest literary advance for an unreadable novel whose highpoint was the equation of the Prophet’s wives with brothel inmates. As Islam lacks the concept of a Holy Family and the wives do not rank as religious entities in its theology, the outraged ummah was caught in an unenviable bind. Rushdie hit a vulnerable spot without technically committing blasphemy; he and his sponsors laughed all the way to the bank.
M.F. Hussain has made execrable paintings of Hindu Devis and is enjoying the fame of notoriety, even as mediocre brush-holders promote their own careers while defending his ‘creative freedom.’ Mercifully, the somnolent Hindu society is waking up to the perils of letting this cultural iconoclasm go unchecked, and legal interventions have prompted Hussain to transfer his assets to his son and stay out of India. Quite a lot of pragmatism for a supposedly bindaas artist!
Actually, Hussain has been allowed too much liberty (read license) because of the Nehruvian quest for sarkari Mussalmans. He once made some “flattering” panels of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, which were installed in Parliament’s Central Hall. The late Piloo Mody found the panels tasteless and objected; Mrs. Gandhi must have seen merit in his view, as the panels disappeared; only Hussain can tell us what happened to them.
The Nehruvian ethos – specifically Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru’s quest for a Soviet-style new Indian with a ‘scientific temper’ and anti-Hindu orientation – is still alive and kicking. It can be seen in the disrespect “reputed” artists display for Hindu cultural sensitivities, while vying for State patronage. Though some high profile corporate wives have taken to promoting art recently, for decades after independence, only Government departments gave artists commissions, foreign tours, and national performances.
Even today, all artists network furiously with babus with Departmental budgets, to promote their “creativity.” I challenge artists defending the disgraceful Mr. Hussain and Chandramohan to make a full disclosure of the extent of State patronage received by them over the decades. SAHMAT should tell us how much funding, if any, derives from sources other than the Union Government. A PIL asking the Government of India to explain its anti-Hindu ethos could be interesting.
In Vadodara, Maharaja Sayajirao University student Chandramohan drew vulgar paintings of Hindu deities, as well as one of Christ. While local pastors objected and joined a protest rally on May 9, both the All India Christian Council and the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of India refused to support them, reducing the issue to ‘saffron’ opposition to the “purity” of iconoclastic perversion. Chandramohan’s language in an interview with a friendly newspaper virtually echoes Pope Benedict XVI’s pronouncement that the native populations of South America were yearning for the faith that drove them to the verge of extinction!
The Dera Sacha Sauda controversy that erupted in the wake of the Vadodara incident has interesting lessons on religious identity and cultural sensitivities. The Dera leaped into national limelight when its chief, Baba Gurmit Ram Rahim Singh, was portrayed wearing a dress that Sikhs associate with Guru Gobind Singh, and distributing ‘amrit’ in contravention of Sikh maryada. Initially some analysts viewed the controversy as political mischief, but there is another aspect.
Hindus routinely dress up as deities at festivals. Sikhs shun images, hence few realize they have a well developed religious iconography around the ten Gurus, depicted pictorially. Thus, when the Baba appeared in a dress reminiscent of the tenth Guru, Sikhs saw it as impersonation (becoming the living image of) and took offence. The Dera expressed regret, followed by an apology, but refused to close down, as demanded by the Akal Takht. It is popular among marginalized groups and should not be needlessly antagonized. A via media could be a declaration that the Dera is a Hindu, not Sikh, organization, and hence not subject to Akal Takht diktat.
I may add here that I do not shun the use of force to command respect for one’s views when public debate is one-sided. Moreover, while Hindu ethos has always separated religious and political authority, religion existed in the public realm. Modern attempts to banish faith into the individual domain are ill-concealed moves to clear the public arena for the domination of one creed, depriving others of agency.
Finally, Union Minister Vyalar Ravi is brazenly attacking Guruvayur priests for purifying the temple after his family worshipped there. The Minister’s wife is Christian, and non-Hindus are not welcome in the mandir. Mr. Ravi could have avoided controversy by declaring that neither his son nor grandson is baptized; the fact that he did not do so suggests the family is Christian. Their insistence upon worshipping the icons of infidels is baffling, but worse is the assault on temple tradition by insisting upon reforms to bring non-believers at par with bhaktas. Hindu society needs to erect higher barricades against aggressive unbelievers trying to invoke State power against the believers.
The Pioneer, 29 May 2007
