[Reader-list] Husain Exhibition Attacked in Delhi

[Rana Dasgupta]

ONE

No one knows what Hinduism is.  But perhaps we can agree that the 
Upanishads are "Hindu".

In the Mandukya Upanishad, which discusses the word "Om", we read that 
in addition to the three sounds of this word, which correspond to three 
different states of a person, there is also its silence - and this 
corresponds to the transcendental state of the individual - to a person:

"who is neither inwardly nor outwardly aware, nor both inward and 
outward, nor with consciousness infolded on itself - who is unseen and 
ineffable, ungraspable, featureless, unthinkable and unnameable."

Other Upanishads name this transcendental state of Om.  It is Brahman. 
It is infinity.

The word "infinity" is used frequently today.  But the Upanishads take 
this word at its face value.  Infinity is *truly* infinite.  It has no 
end, and there is nothing it does not include.  Om is *literally* 
everything.  There is nothing that is not Om.  Even the things we think 
are not Om, are Om.  Even a parody of Om is Om.  Even an insult to Om is 
Om.

Meditation on the word "Om" reveals that the self is part of this 
infinity.  I am Om.  My egotistical impulses are ridiculous.  I cannot 
take from the universe because I am the universe.  If I feel that my 
body or my street or my family or my town or my country are spiritually 
unique or special then I have not begun to understand the infinity I am 
part of.  I cannot break anything off from this infinity and worship it. 
  Infinity is infinity, and I can spend my entire life contemplating it 
but every thought I have of infinity is limited, and it is not infinity 
itself.

If this is Hinduism then Hinduism is fantastically, impossibly grand. 
Why then would we mix it up with things that are not grand at all, as if 
they existed on the same level?

"India" for instance.  "India" is a 60 year-old political pragmatism. 
"India" is an accidental territory.  It is a collection of peoples of 
different races, histories, languages, religions, incomes and 
sexualities.  It is a seat in the UN.  It is a bureaucratic machine.  It 
is a hastily contrived set of symbols.  Its beginning was recent, and 
one day it will cease to be.  It is not particularly grand.  In the 
context of infinity, of Om, India is of no importance at all.

It seems impossible that Hindus, people with such an enormous vision of 
  the universe, would get upset about pictures that a painter made.  The 
painter is Om, and so are his pictures.  Sex is Om, the naked body is 
Om.  It seems impossible that Hindus would be interested in nationalism 
or anti-nationalism because such parochialism would be far below them. 
They would only be interested in "India" in the same way they were 
interested in "Congo" or "Azerbaijan" or "Paraguay" - for these things 
are of interest, but none more than any other.

Hindus are too grand to be concerned by India or painters or people who 
worship differently to them.  Such things melt into the enormity of 
infinity, and disappear.

TWO

Why would one speak of "the Motherland"?  What is one trying to say with 
this word?  How can "the Motherland" be identical to a nation?

If one is trying to say that the land is nurturing like a mother this is 
true, but so is all land, not just the land of a certain nation.

Perhaps one could say that the Indian government organised schools and 
ration cards and elections and television broadcasts - and therefore 
India is my Motherland.  But this would be a strange and unromantic idea 
of a mother.









chanchal malviya wrote:
 > Dear Khanna,
 >
 > 1. There are people in this world who are not ready to take the 
positive side of their own identity. There are people who would love to 
rape their own mother and motherland. And there are some people who even 
protect their intention as personal attitude. Great. Not to say anything 
to them.
 > 2. You telling that motherland is a metaphor and nothing else 
explains in itself what you feel about India. I am sure such person also 
feel the same for their own mother and sister. And I have written 
earlier that such person would not come to protect their mother also, 
what to say about the broader concept of motherland.
 > 3. As far as Hinduism is concerned, it has to be recognized through 
the text only. It cannot be recognized at least now by actions of 
people. Because India is more Islamic and Christianized than a Hindu 
country. Of course, people like you are a part of it. Hinduism is a mere 
subject of attack in India. What I told about Hinduism is exactly what 
is HInduism. And why Hinduism, this word came into existence only when 
other Religions forced it upon the people of Sanatan Dharma.
 >
 > I know you will not be able to understand the difference between 
Dharma and Religion. For you and Gandhiji both are same. But Dharma 
means Righteous duty and Religion is what you all are talking about. 
Hinduism is science and teaches righteous duty in scientific manner. 
World outside India is recognizing this, but our Indians will understand 
it only when a 'Gora' will come and say and that also when he is ruling 
us. Sorry.
 >
 > Sex is a power of nature that is to be won by human through various 
methodologies described in Hindu text. And that is an important step 
towards Self-Realization. Attempt is that only. Women taking bath nude 
didn't cover their body when Sukdeva (son of Veda Vyas) crossed them, 
because they knew that he is a child in his nature on this matter. But 
they immediately took cover when Veda Vyas crossed.
 > There are many stories where Saints are being enticed by Apsaras for 
sex. And the theme of all story is same - sex is a very powerful natural 
factor. And winning over it is the biggest win in life.
 > If sex would have been so prominent in Hindus, we would have found 
Hindu society also marrying multitude of women.
 > Please do not try to put Hinduism under charge, for this.
 > I have already told you the meaning of Deities, and yet you do not 
understand and ask me stupid questions.
 >
 > Unlike Islam, where one is allowed to marry as many as they like as 
per their capacity and in addition keep as many women as their right 
hand posses (Hindu women) for sex. It is unlike Christian where sex and 
love are the same thing.
 >
 > M.F.Hussain is a gift of Islam. So, he will see even his motherland 
only with his Madhuri attitude. No, he is seeing India nude with his 
Islamic attitude. He has seen Madhuri also with his Islamic attitude, 
though film stars have a different life style and we may not be 
protective of them in this matter.
 >
 > It is so simple, if M.F.Hussain is so clean, let him paint his 
mother. Or if you or the protector of M.F.Hussain has so large heart, 
please send a photograph of your mother to him and ask him to paint her 
nude. Let me see, how many of you are not of double standard.
 > Either you all are in favor of Darul-Islam, or you are abusing your 
own motherland by supporting bloody Hussain.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message ----
 > From: A Khanna <A.Khanna at sms.ed.ac.uk>
 > To: Prabhakar Singh <prabhakardelhi at yahoo.com>
 > Cc: chanchal malviya <chanchal_malviya at yahoo.com>; inder salim 
<indersalim at gmail.com>; reader-list at sarai.net
 > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:36:56 AM
 > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Husain Exhibition Attacked in Delhi
 >
 > chanchal, prabhakar, Everyone Else,
 >
 > there are three issues i'd like to reflect on in light of your rather
 > rabid postings on the issues of the attack on M.F. Husain's
 > exhibition. Apologies for the rather long posting, i do hope some of
 > you will find it interesting.
 >
 > First, a rather obvious contestation relating to Chanchal's gratuitous
 > offer to speak the 'truth' of 'Hinudism', and more broadly, the
 > aggressive claim of Hindutva forces of a monopoly of what the terms
 > 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' may mean. More particularly, this is a
 > contestation of the place of sexualness and eroticism in them. What
 > makes it possible for the claim to be made that 'sex is not erotic in
 > hinduism' on the one hand, and the demeaning of artists who brought
 > out erotics in sex as 'failed' Hindus? What exactly is the fear of the
 > erotic? Why are these strange people trying to cleave eroticism away
 > from the lives of 'Hindus'??
 >
 > Surely you are aware that there is a diversity of practices,
 > festivals, mythologies, political economies, cosmologies if you like,
 > in different parts of the country and in different communities in the
 > same regions, that may lay claim to the name 'Hindu'. This is even in
 > the face of colonial, and more recent hindu fundamentalist, attempts
 > to reduce this diversity into a rather boring, often  textual,
 > normative frame. Chanchal offers, in other words, one peculiar vision
 > of some 'pure' or 'original' 'Hinduism' as though it exists in texts
 > (particular ones that by perhaps little more than historical
 > serendipity, and sex anxious coloniality, came to be seen as
 > containing the 'truth' of 'Hindu culture'), rather than in the
 > embodiment and practices of people. chanchal's vision, of a “faith
 > (not religion) that talks about winning over the senses (particularly
 > sex)” is one that, for the large part, stands miles away from various
 > realities, practices and beliefs of those who consider themselves
 > 'Hindu'.
 >
 > In my travels around India researching sexualness and eroticism I
 > encountered a confounding multiplicity of festivals, rituals,
 > identities and idioms in which eroticism, desire and sexualness are
 > central. Way too many of these take place in temples, way too many of
 > these are central to local religious practices, and the logics and
 > experiences of faith, way too many of these lay claim to being
 > 'Hindu', for me to accept chanchal's description of Hinduism as an
 > achievement over sex. Or of the Lingam as light. (is it just me or
 > does this sounds closer to a Victorian Christianity? – a reading of
 > colonial anxieties around sex race and gender into the truth of the
 > self?)  So chanchal, unfortunately yours is one peculiar vision of
 > 'hindu', and a pathetically unimaginative one at that. It sounds to me
 > like the collective voice of a masculinist upper caste that is yet to
 > come to terms with (or even recognise) the damage done to it through
 > the colonial experience and one which clings to rather fragile stories
 > of the self. And it is unfortunate that the political economy of
 > Hindutva allows such a vision so much importance today. (Let me
 > clarify that i am not particularly invested or interested in
 > reclaiming Hindu from the bare teeth of the aggressive masculinist
 > claimants. But i do want to point to the right of others to do so.)
 >
 > The second interesting point in the postings is the tension around
 > nudity. Nakedness. Such a beautiful experience. Do you not love the
 > human body? Do you not love your own selves? Is it a fear or disgust
 > with the self or some other trauma that brings about such anxiety
 > around nakedness? But ofcourse this is not just the representation of
 > the naked human body that seems to have caused this anxiety – it seems
 > to be, more precisely, that you necessarily see sexualness and
 > eroticism in the naked human body. But hold on, it is not just
 > sexualness and eroticism of the naked human body that has caused this
 > anxiety, it is a very particular nakedness – the nakedness of
 > 'Motherland India'. Because, the problem with 'perverted Husain' is
 > that to him “Mother Indian and Madhuri are the same” – therefore,
 > actually its alright for him to paint Madhuri, in fact you probably
 > sat at the edge of your seat, enthralled as many of us were, as
 > Madhuri oh so sensuously thrust her beautiful breasts forward,
 > inviting you to a world of phantasmic pleasure, nevermind the
 > performance of outrage at the LYRICS of Choli Ke Peechhe (and i'm not
 > talking merely of pleasure for the male gaze of Masculine Men. I for
 > one, wanted to be Madhuri). Its the nakedness of Mother India, or
 > Motherland India that caused anxiety. So lets face this ponderous
 > image of a naked, sexualised Mother India head on. There are two
 > things that i find fascinating here.
 >
 > First, the Motherland is a metaphor. A very powerful metaphor
 > admittedly. But a metaphor nonetheless. India is experienced as many
 > things, and through many metaphors – a place, sometimes a 'people', a
 > postcolonial nation state, a geographical entity with multiple and
 > complex cartographic existences, a cricket team, a zone of intense
 > gastronomic density, a colonising force, an a series of competing and
 > collaborating political economies...But India is not simply a woman.
 > And Kashmir is not the head of this woman (as we were unfortunately
 > taught in school in the 80s). The power of this metaphor is truly
 > fascinating.
 >
 > But how does one strip a metaphor?? This must be one hell of a
 > brilliant painting! (on which note, are there any weblinks to images
 > of this painting? If someone knows a link i implore you, please share
 > it on this list). If it is true that this painting has managed to
 > actually bring this metaphor into an embodiment, and then brought out
 > an eroticism in it (rather than what it seems like, the attackers not
 > having even really seen and experienced the the painting) then what it
 > has done is expose Mother India as a metaphor, and weakened the power
 > that 'she' wields. Brilliant. The second thing is of course that once
 > we see Mother India as a metaphor into which we are constantly
 > investing a sense of reality, the metaphor becomes a contested space.
 > And perhaps this is what is creating anxiety for the likes of
 > prabhakar and chanchal?
 >
 > So lets look at what it is about the stripping of this metaphor that
 > has gotten them, and the attackers of the exhibition so aggressive?
 > What is the power of this metaphor? One of prabhakar's email hits the
 > nail on the head. “If some artist in the name of art paints your
 > mother nude and displays it in art galleries and exhibitions to public
 > how would you feel and how would you react?”, s/he asks. A similar
 > point is made by chanchal when s/he says “I am sure, a person who
 > paints his motherland nude, must have done much more nonesense (sic)
 > to his mother and sister”. This leads me to understand that the
 > anxiety over the depiction of Mother India in such a way that she may
 > be seen to be sexualised, as erotic, is actually an anxiety around the
 > possibility that heris mother is sexual, or has an erotic side to her.
 > Is it scary, prabhakar, chanchal, for you to imagine that your mother
 > may be a sexual being with erotic desires, and with a body that is her
 > own, and which can be naked? Is it a fear of this possibility that
 > evokes in you, such strong emotions when you see (or perhaps hear of)
 > what some artist has done on a piece of canvas with paint? Is it this
 > fear that you will allow to dominate your very imagination of the
 > Nation of India? Freudian psychobabble, in other words, offers itself
 > up tantalisingly here. Is their Hindu nation structured around an
 > Oedipal anxiety over desire for the mother? (ugh!)
 >
 > The troubling effect of this is of course the denial in nationalist
 > discourse of sexualness or rather the right to sexualness of women, as
 > after all, the big obligation on the good woman is to become the
 > mother of (male) children. This justifies mechanisms of regulation
 > over women's sexualness, and the meting out of punishment and
 > exclusion to those who fail to live within these boundaries, or
 > transgress them at will. The protests against the film Fire being a
 > case in point. But how does a woman become a mother (over and over
 > again, atleast until she begets a Son), when she is bereft of
 > sexualness? Is this an imagination of immaculate conception, or, a
 > belief that the only form of legitimate sex is heterosexual rape? The
 > point here is that if the metaphor of the Motherland and the lives of
 > women must feed into each other, the demand for the recognition of
 > sexualness and women's right to sexuality must also address the
 > sexualness of the metaphor of Mother India.
 >
 > This brings me to my last point. I was brought up with a sense of
 > patriotism, stories of the freedom struggle, stories of the success of
 > Big Nehruvian development and images of Mother India. In fact i
 > sometimes still experience a sense of nostalgia for that heady emotion
 > of being part of that particular 'something bigger'. (yes, i cried
 > when i watched Rang De Basanti). I have, in other words, experienced
 > the power of Mother India, and surely all that investment by the state
 > into making sure that this experience marks my psyche forever entails
 > me to owning the metaphor. I claim the right, in other words to invest
 > this metaphor with things. If i bring my travels around India to bear
 > on this, i'd say 'Mother India', to me, is one hell of beautiful,
 > sensual, sexual, erotic figure, a polymorphous queer body, who laughs,
 > flirts, makes love, has soul-baring intense sex. Oh, and, sigh, S/he
 > also makes steel.
 >
 >
 > Love,
 >
 > akshay
 >