[Reader-list] Ways of Life and Transgressions

[Yousuf Saeed]

Dear Shuddha, others
I really appreciate your highlighting of the fact that Hussain's intention may not be of insulting the Hindus by drawing the deities in the nude or otherwise. I am not a defender of Hussain, but would like to put across a few points. Many people (on this list and elsewhere) have pointed out that Hussain never drew any Muslim character (such as the Prophet) in this manner, and therefore his intention must be to insult the Hindus. They also say that such an act by any artist in a Muslim country (like Saudi Arabia) would result in death penalty, and so on. But maybe Hussain did not draw an Islamic character in an "immodest" posture simply because such an image or icon doesn’t exist in the Islam's visual cultural tradition. If he does it, then that would be deliberately provocative (although I am not saying it shouldn't be done). But he could draw a Hindu deity in the nude because such a tradition exists in our Indian visual culture. I doubt if he avoids
 the depiction of Muslim themes because he is scared of the Islamists. Maybe he simply can't relate to it as an Indian.

If I as an artist cannot express my certain feelings in the language that has been taught to be me by my parents, and I suddenly discover a new language that allows me to express that peculiar feeling in a much better way than what my mother tongue did, I would be happy to use the new language. There are thousands of poets and artists who found a new way of expression in a language which every one in their midst had found "inferior" – I am talking for example of the tradition of Persian poets of South Asia who also wrote verses in Hindi or Hinduvi. While poets such as Masud Sa'd Salman, Amir Khusrau, Abdurrahim Khane-khana, Ghalib, or Iqbal became famous for their exquisite verse in Persian, their heart pours out better in their Hinduvi, Urdu or Braj poetry where they can come down to the earth from the lofty royal palaces. We often say, "Unki Hindi shayeri mein mitti ki khushbu aati hai" (one can smell the earth in their vernacular poetry). And I
 think Hussain is no different from them. He cannot draw an Islamic character in the nude because it's probably not in his palette, or doesn't touch his heart. (And we cannot force him to do it to become more politically correct).

You may say that a lot of semi-pornographic scenes have been drawn in Mughal or Persian miniatures, and he could have followed that. But that's not the point. Hindu deities are flexible enough for us to turn them around the way we wish, to express a certain feeling that cannot be expressed any other way. So why not appreciate and celebrate that fact. (I know such a statement from me might raise some eyebrows). I maybe a Muslim but I appreciate the fact that you can literally play with many Hindu deities. Just the other day I heard Pandit Jasraj sing a khayal in which the lyrics repeatedly referred to Krishna as a chor (thief). Does that insult a Hindu? Or would it insult a Hindu if this khayal was sung by Ustad Amir Khan? (Incidentally, a large number of traditional Hindu devotional lyrics sung in classical music have reached us via Muslim gharana musicians, and much of devotional Hindu visual mythology has come to us via patwa artists of Bengal who are
 all Muslim. Can M.F.Hussain be detached from that continuity?) Much of the popular calendar and poster art of 20th century showing Hindu deities was drawn by an artist called Hasan Raza Raja of Meerut. And the manner in which most Hindu deities are visualized today comes from the pioneering work of Raja Ravi Varma who was clearly inspired by western style of art where human models were used to visualize the gods and goddesses. So, does all this insult the Hindus? And what is the "original" Hindu way of imagining the deities any way?

I liked your quoting from Kausari who is among many Hindu poets who have written/announced their emotive affiliation with Prophet Mohammad in the same way as say with Krishna. I doubt if such actions in the past may have met with much resistance (as you have mentioned) – such examples were a norm. There are many Hindu poets who have written marsiyas full of pathos for Imam Hussain's martyrdom, and many Muslim poets who composed adorable songs for Krishna. I don't think it was too hard to cross the road in those days. So, why are we busy throwing stones onto each other from the two sides of a road? I could imagine that at least an online forum like Sarai could act like a subway or a walk-over bridge to cross the busy highway. But currently it seems more like a road-block. And we are all paying the toll.

Yousuf




--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:

> From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
> Subject: [Reader-list] Ways of Life and Transgressions
> To: "Sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 1:31 PM
> Dear All,
> 
> I have been intrigued by the exchange on the list of late
> that has  
> preferred to jettison the term 'religion' and
> prefer in its stead the  
> euphimistic phrase - 'ways of life'. I am referring
> to the exchange  
> between Chanchal Malviya and Jeebesh Bagchi, arising out of
> the  
> heated correspondence on the disruption of a small
> exhibition devoted  
> to M.F.Husain.
> 
> i am quite convinced that the term 'religion' 
> which derives from the  
> latin root of the word religio (bond) and religare (the
> verb form of  
> 'to bind') remains for me a useful word to name the
> act of committing  
> oneself in any form. In this sense, atheists and agnostics
> are just  
> as religious (in their commitment to doubt) as are those
> blessed with  
> faith. I would describe my religious commitment as
> agnosticism - a  
> commitment to doubt everything, (including the value of
> doubt) and a  
> certainty that we cannot speak certainly of anything at
> all, because  
> there are always counterfactuals, and hitherto unimagined,
> or unknown  
> possibilities, that goad us on to yet newer possibilities,
> or to  
> return to some very old ones. This is just to say that it
> would be a  
> mistake to assume, as is often done with some arrogance on
> the part  
> of the more pronouncedly 'faithful', that atheists
> and agnostics have  
> no 'spiritual' quests. They do, and they dont, just
> as those who are  
> ostentatiously 'religious' do, and dont, or do only
> in as much as it  
> allows them to burn a few churches as they go questing. If
> Hindu  
> fundamentalists have chosen to renounce the ties that bind
> (religio)  
> them to life, who would I be to object, because, I am not a
> Hindu.  
> But I have no quarrel with the term 'ways of life'.
> The more words we  
> have, the better.
> 
> This discussion arose out of a rage felt by some that a
> group of  
> zealots had broken and disrupted an exhibition that
> featured some  
> images of and by Husain, and the counter rage felt by
> others that the  
> zealots had no right to be criticised because they were
> acting to  
> protect the honour of the Hindu deities that they felt
> Husain had  
> insulted.
> 
> The second case is as follows - what right has Husain, a
> Muslim to  
> insult Hindu deities by portraying them in a manner that is
> offensive  
> to the sentiments of many Hindus. (Husain's
> motivations, or the  
> aesthetic merit of his images are not the issue here, what
> is at  
> issue is the insult seen to have occurred when a non-Hindu
> 'touches'  
> a sacred Hindu icon with his 'insulting'
> imagination. Those so  
> enraged, also throw the following challenge, has the
> opposite ever  
> occurred?
> 
> I am not here to make a case for Husain. (As I have said
> before I do  
> not have a very high opinion of his work as an artist). I
> am here to  
> make a case for what is considered to be transgression. No
> one can be  
> sure when they have transgressed. Because transgression can
> be seen  
> to occur even when the motives of the person concerned are
> far from  
> transgression. Husain can say in his defence, and indeed
> has on  
> occasion said that his paintings are an index of his
> appreciation of  
> Indic culture and its diversity of expressions, of his
> closeness  
> (since early childhood) to forms of iconic imagery in
> popular Hinduism.
> 
> Here his intent is clearly not to insult, on the contrary,
> it is to  
> declare his appreciation for the beauty of the iconography
> of popular  
> Hinduism, a charge for which he would be equally hated by
> both Hindu  
> as well as Muslim fundamentalists.
> 
> It has not been noticed that no Muslim fundamentalist or
> even Muslim  
> religious figure has come out in defence of Husain. They
> are in fact  
> in tacit agreement with their Hindu peers. A Muslim making
> images,  
> and that too of Hindu goddesses, because he is drawn to
> them, can  
> only be seen as blasphemy in their eyes. On this, like on
> so many  
> other issues, Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists are in total
> agreement.
> 
> Let me come now to an interesting counterfactual argument.
> I refer to  
> the life an work of a little known late nineteenth century
> and early  
> twentieth century Urdu poet of Delhi called Dillu Ram
> Kausari. Now as  
> his name suggests, Dillu Ram was a Hindu. The trouble is,
> throughout  
> his life he composed deliriously passionate elegies
> (na'at)  to the  
> Prophet Muhammad.
> 
> One of his quatrains went as follows
> 
> Kuch ‘ishq e Muhammad mein nahin shart e Musulman!
> Hai Kausari Hindu bhii talabgaar e Muhammad!
> Allah re! kyaa raunaq e bazaar e Muhammad
> Ke Ma’bood e Jahan bhi hai kharidaar e Muhammad!
> 
> Being a Muslim is not a condition for loving Muhammad!
> Kausari, the Hindu, is also a seeker of Muhammad!
> By Allah! How delightful is the bazaar of Muhammad
> For the Lord of the Worlds is also a buyer of Muhammad!
> 
> This kind of sentiment shocked both Hindus and Muslims.
> Hindus,  
> because how could a Hindu sing what amounted to love songs
> to a  
> Muslim prophet, and Muslims, for the same reason. Both felt
> slighted  
> and insulted by the transgressive way in which the
> imagination of the  
> poet had 'touched' the body of what was sacred for
> one, and not, for  
> the other.
> 
> Another poem, which proved to be even more controversial,
> went like  
> this -
> 
> Rahmatulilalamin kay Hashar mein maana’ khulay
> Khalq saari Shaafa e Roz e Jaza kay saath hai
> Laykay Dillu Raam ko jannat mein jab Hazrat gaye
> Ma’loom huwa kay Hindu bhi Mahboob e Khuda kay saath hai!
> 
> The meaning of “Mercy unto the Worlds” became apparent
> on Judgement Day:
> The whole creation is with the Intercessor of The Day of
> Acquittal
> When the Prophet took Dillu Ram with him into Paradise
> It was known that this Hindu too is with the Beloved of
> God!
> 
> This poem, especially scandalized Muslim orthodoxy, because
> it dared  
> to suggest that the prophet himself would intercede on
> behalf of an  
> unbeliever on the day of judgement.
> 
> It is interesting to note that Dillu Ram never became a
> Muslim, at  
> least not in his lifetime. An article in the interesting
> web portal  
> Chowk  http://www.chowk.com/articles/12692 by one Asif
> Naqshbandi says
> 
> "It is also said that Dillu Ram, delirious with his
> love, would  
> sometimes stand in the middle of the bazaar in Delhi, put
> chains  
> around his neck and feet and shout at the top of his voice
> to all  
> passers-by, “Muhammad! Muhammad! Muhammad! Yes! Muhammad
> is the  
> Beloved of God! Muhammad is the first and only Beloved of
> God! If God  
> loves you, He loves you because of His Beloved!” Some
> people even  
> stoned him and he would often come home covered in blood
> but he was  
> totally lost in his love of the Prophet (peace and
> blessings be upon  
> him!)"
> 
> There is an apocryphal story of how on his deathbed Dillu
> Ram Kausari  
> had a vision of the Prophet himself, who came to him, and
> that he  
> read the Kalima with him. But as this vision is reported to
> have  
> appeared only to him, as he lay dying, and as he is no
> longer with us  
> to either confirm or deny this deathbed conversion, we can
> only  
> surmise that it was a generous, but somewhat disingenuous
> method of  
> having Dillu Ram's somewhat unorthodox Muslim
> apologists claim him  
> for themselves.
> 
> As far as we are concerned, Dillu Ram Kausari, caused grave
> offence,  
> by his love for the Prophet, both to Hindu as well as to
> Muslim  
> zealots, as long as he lived.
> 
> If, the things we call religions are 'ways of life'
> then we can  
> always determine for ourselves whether we want to walk on a
> one way  
> street that runs into a dead end, or to cross many paths,
> walking  
> down one way, for one purpose, down another way for
> another, and  
> sometimes just standing in between paths, figuring out our
> journey,  
> as we go about our lives.
> 
> I find cases like Husain and Dillu Ram Kausari interesting
> not  
> because of what they paint of what they say, but because
> they seem to  
> cause such prolonged traffic jams on the 'ways of
> life'. And all they  
> were doing was crossing the road.
> 
> thanks and regards,
> 
> Shuddha
> 
> -----
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta
> 
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject
> header.
> To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>