Towards Artistic Freedom ... ?

It has been a week since Hussain died. And a week since people started making analyses, expressing opinions on how India treated the artist. While Hussain himself courted lots of controversies, many of them have continued to live on - and are unlikely to die anytime soon, given that he is not present anymore to defend his works and intentions. There will be those who express grief at the treatment he was meted out, and there will be those for whom Hussain’s works were insulting. However, in the example of Hussain, many artists and intellectuals find a test of our society. The test being the nation's ability to uphold the rights of an artist.

Both sides would however agree that Hussain’s case is just one instance and nothing else. The greater concern is that of Art, Artists, freedom of their pursuits and limits of their freedom. To reach a definitive consensus on where to draw limits for artistic expressions, if at all there should be any, we as a society have to take note of some issues.

Critics will first need to decide what qualifies a person pursuing artistic vocations to actually become an artist? How is it to be measured if a person is an artist? Is it to be measured by the number of awards he has won or by the number of people following him? Surely, there has to be a measure – otherwise, the society will simply degenerate into a group of impostors posing as artists and claiming special privileges to themselves. Assuming we manage to somehow define an artist and even arrive at a consensus at how to identify one, a follow-up question, occurring naturally, is should such a person have special privileges? Should an artist enjoy unhindered liberty to intrude into the lives of others, even if they are a fringe minority or an outcaste? Could such actions smack of selfishness - indulging in something objectionable to someone to satisfy one's own creative urge?

Let us also dwell on the subjects of artistic pursuits and their treatment for a while. There are entities that exist in the objective universe and there are imaginary entities. Some of these entities are considered profane, some mundane and some venerated. Divinity, by its nature, is not scientifically provable. Religious entities from mythologies are imaginary. But to assume that they are dead is a mistake. They are symbols; And symbols are often looked up to with greatest respect. The national flag of India, the words 'satyamev jayate', the national anthem, the parliament, the constitution - they are not living entities; But, they are symbols that invoke plenty of positivity and infuse life. These entities as subjects of artistic expressions are not a source of concern – but, their treatment requires an artist to behave with responsibility. People place their objects of respect in the hands of an artist – with a hope that they will discover a new facet. Can artists then ask for liberty to toy with such themes of veneration?

Another argument often cited in defense certain artistic themes is the History, Culture and religion of Ancient India. Interestingly, on the one hand, intellectuals argue that India needs to shed shackles of religion, superstitions and the like, and on the other hand, the same tradition is put forth as an argument in defense of artistic pursuits in modern times as in case of Hussain. Incidentally, it is given to us that temples with erotic imagery were constructed in India - but, what is unknown to us today is the view of the society then. A King can have his way - anytime, anyplace. The Chandela rulers, for example, the builders of the Khajuraho temples, are known to have been patrons of tantric cults or at least heavily influenced by them. Even if there were a minority of their subjects, who would have found anything offensive, they could hardly have raised their voices. Further is there a justification for accepting monuments as Khajuraho the standards of a religion? The tantra is known to be a marginal sect within an amazingly broad religion. A religion with astounding philosophies as Vedanta, Sankhya, Yoga, Mimansa, Nyaya, Vaisheshika and several others; A religion giving equal space to the dualist and to the monist; A religion not mocking the simpleton’s belief in the duality nor feeling threatened by the scholar’s defense of Marxism nor taking offence at an atheist’s rejection of divinity. Could it be preposterous to make India’s ancient religion and such religious thoughts synonymous with some standalone architectures?

And finally there is yet another facet to this issue, and that is of the legality of an expression. Within the precincts of a democracy, can a group of artists and intellectuals lay special claims for themselves? Can artistic freedom transcend the legal framework of a country? Is this not in disharmony with the foundations of democracy and equality? If India is to be a democracy, then she has to be fair to the commonfolk as to the artist. This is an important issue requiring a national debate. The society can not allow this to be determined by a small vocal minority by throat power.

In conclusion, it is too early for us to pass a judgment on Hussain as an artist, and it shall be for the posterity to make an objective analysis of him and his work. However, Hussain per se is not important. More important are the rules for debates in the society to answer the questions above. There are minority intellectual groups blessed with easy access to the media and equipped with specific agendas hijacking debates leaving the large masses mute and expressionless. It is high time that these rules are set and these debates are conducted on level grounds.