NEW DELHI: Union Human Resource Development Minister Arjun Singh on Tuesday said the M.S. University of Baroda in Vadodara had failed to provide a wholesome atmosphere to its students, adding that “what had happened wasn’t an unheard of occurrence in Gujarat.”

Replying to questions on the sidelines of a book launch function here, Mr. Singh said:

“It is a State university and we would not like to interfere in the freedom of expression which is a universal right.” Asked what steps would be taken in the wake of suspension of the college Dean, Mr. Singh said:

“The University Grants Commission has sought a report on the matter and we will see what needs to be done when something comes up.”

The HRD Minister, who along with CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury was present at the launch of the book “The Al Jazeera Decade”, said:

“Al-Jazeera in the last decade has become a major vehicle for understanding and interacting with the realities of the Arab world. No other media channel has triggered so much of debate and excited researchers’ scrutiny as this channel has done in the last decade.”

Mr. Singh added that the most important constituent of the spirit of the channel was its commitment to journalistic integrity, the core values of journalism and its long established traditions.

“It ensures that equal opportunity of expression is given to all opposing views and parties. The channel contributes to the building of a conscious, free and responsible public opinion.”

Also present at the launch were Deputy Managing Director of Al-Jazeera (English) Ibrahim Helal who said: “Our definition of news is a bit different; for us it is about something that someone somewhere does not want the world to know. Our news is not about propaganda. We believe that journalism is not about the opportunity to shine but to give voice to the voiceless.”

Printer friendly page

The happenings at M S University of Vadodara over the last week have revealed how fragile some of the basic rights of citizens in the country are, and how compromised the institutional and official set-up has become in some places. A Bajrang Dal activist close to the BJP walked into the fine arts faculty of the well-known university in Gujarat and objected to an exhibition of works by a senior student, done as part of his course work, as it supposedly hurt the religious feelings of groups of people. Successively, the student was arrested, the exhibition closed down, the dean of the faculty suspended by the university for refusing to close down the exhibition (or, as another version has it, for trying to get the student released) and the student eventually released on bail after five long days. The vice-chancellor of the university, whose scholarly work closely follows the BJP’s credo, defended the actions by his office on the grounds that the student’s work had hurt the sentiments of a large section of society. What makes things worse is that M S University and its fine arts faculty are held in high esteem in the country.

This episode highlights the intolerance that is rife in the country and the damage done to civic life in general and academic institutions in particular, especially those whose raison d’être must be to foster the ability to think and express oneself freely. This does not happen in a vacuum, and reflects the degree to which academic and faculty autonomy has been compromised by putting in key places functionaries who are essentially political hangers-on. Further, the forces of law, far from coming to the rescue of the individual facing the wrath of such activism, side with the goons and throw the victim into jail!

It is easy to pick on Narendra Modi, the Gujarat chief minister, for fostering such a climate of intolerance in his state, but the problem is a much larger one as becomes obvious when looking at other such instances in the recent past. Deepa Mehta was prevented from making a film which in the minds of similar activists wrongly depicted the cultural history of the country; it was eventually shot in Sri Lanka and has been widely appreciated wherever it has been shown. M F Husain has been targeted for supposed disrespect shown to deities in his works of art, and faces court action. The list can go on. In Chhattisgarh, the head of the state’s civil liberties unit has just been thrown into jail, allegedly for complicity with Naxalites, but the real reason may well be that the administration did not like his focus on how the civil rights of ordinary villagers were being trampled on in the state’s fight against Maoists. In Madhya Pradesh, a professor died some months ago after he was roughed up by students said to be activists of the Sangh Parivar, and the culprits may get away scot free. Films and books are banned virtually at the drop of a hat, and cultural vigilantes routinely move against youngsters who display affection on Valentine’s Day. In the same category is the attack on a newspaper office in Madurai because a local politician did not like an opinion poll’s findings; three people died in the attack but the local police have taken no action.

In short, the Vadodara episode is a part of a much broader trend. Today the people on the attack are often from the Sangh Parivar because they have been emboldened by state support and the supineness of those who stand and watch. But others are involved too, like DMK activists in Madurai. And there have been periods when those on the warpath have been Marxists and Muslim conservatives because they felt they had political power on their side. What is generally missing in all this is the liberal ethos, which an open democracy should be expected to foster and which is the ultimate guarantor of civil liberties. In the long run the only bulwark against such assaults is the spread of good sense all round so that those who may err find themselves without support. In the short run everybody who cares must stand up and protest. A galaxy of well-known creative people has joined protests in Mumbai and Vadodara against the recent developments. Some leading academics have requested the President to intervene. The dean must be immediately reinstated, the case against the student dropped, and the battle to protect the freedom of expression joined whenever the need arises. Too much has already been allowed to happen without the culprits paying any price.

While I having resisted the temptation to interpret what is and what is not. A Few questions do arise from reading the posts over the period.

• Religion and myths are intertwined in a constant cycle of reinterpretation in context of the present. So assuming myths and religion have been constant since antiquity is like assuming once belief in steady state theory being. No one stops you from believing in it, but evidence points the other way. Take instance of Brahma, the god of creation. His popularity as a god has seen lots of ups and downs since days of Rig-Veda. Buddha, on the other hand, around 8th century CE was assimilated into Hindu fold as Vishnu avatar which finally led to decline of Buddhism in India. Should one try to stop this cycle, suspending religion in social vacuum?
• Artistic license is not a bastion of “artists” only. Also this freedom to reinterpret does exists within social sanctions. A bollywood song comes to my mind in this context, Rang barse bheege chunar wali, quite a beautiful song from Silsila. Nobody protests against this song considering, how blasphemes a line like ‘holi kheere Raghuveera’ is. For uninitiated Raghuveera is Ram who is ‘Maryada Porshuottam’, a strict follower of dharma and hence could not have indulged in frivolous things like playing holi which would require touching a woman other than his wife Sita. Who draws these lines on, what is social sanctioned and what is not?

And we blog for another day.

The Serbo-Croatian writer, Danilo Kis, said that art is the terrain where you are absolutely free and where you can explore all life’s beauties and life’s vices without being punished. This should be what we expect within a democratic society. However, in today’s India the freedom of expression is being systematically curtailed. Fundamentalist agencies have taken it upon themselves to become the moral custodians of cultural propriety.

The appalling invasion by BJP activists into the Faculty of Fine Arts of the University of Baroda during their internal examination evaluation of the art work of students, is unlawful and must be strongly condemned by all who value democracy. If we allow this atrocity to go un-protested we will be giving over our educational institutions to the dictates of conservative agendas and to those who desire to sabotage India’s pluralism.

I am an alumnus of the Faculty of Fine Arts of Baroda. It is at this art college that I was trained to experiment, challenge, dialogue, critique and learn through the diversity of attitudes explored. An art college must provide an environment that is unfettered by prejudice or bias. It is the educators and administrators of these educational institutions who must protect the neutrality and freedom of the students.

I would compare an educational institution to a family. It is the space where through nurturing by elders, one grows to become an informed and articulate individual. It is here where one should expect never to be betrayed nor abandoned. It is therefore outrageous that the authorities have chosen to side with the perpetrators of violence and oppression, instead of defending the unlawful arrest of Chandramohan Srilamantula, an MA student in the print making department.

What becomes farcical is the subsequent suspension of Dr Shivaji Panikkar, a renowned art historian who contributes immense value as a teacher in the Fine Arts Faculty. His contribution has impacted contemporary Indian art history. It is shameful that he has been treated so shabbily by the university authorities.

Be forewarned, when civil liberties are so blatantly trampled upon and the ranting of fundamentalists becomes the rule of law, then none of us are safe any more. Freedom is not a seven-letter word in a game of scrabble. It is a constitutional right that is and must be held sacred within a democratic nation and be upheld as the birthright of every citizen. We are fast heading towards a system where all the voices of dissent will be stifled. It is happening to someone else today. It may be your turn tomorrow.

The writer is an alumnus of MS University of Baroda

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The essence of a free society is its ability to encourage dissent against all authority — political, academic, religious or cultural. On May 11, the television pictures from the University of Baroda showed us the face of tyranny. That Sangh Parivar goons who stormed and vandalised the exhibition of art work put up by a student at the Faculty of Fine Arts of the MS University at Baroda, could then speak with such confidence to television cameras is shocking. It tells us not just that they do not fear the wrath of the law, and that they believe censorship is acceptable in the service of a cause, but also that they are certain that their actions would meet with social approval. So did the Taliban.

There are five aspects of the episode that need our immediate attention. It should not be seen as an isolated incident, posing no challenge to our robust culture of freedom, but should instead be regarded as yet another example, together with the threats against M.F. Husain and Shilpa Shetty, of a growing fanaticism. The vandals seem emboldened by our collective inertia. As all vandals always are.

The first aspect, therefore, that should merit our attention is to recognise that the vandalism took place not just in the university but in the classroom or art studio. This is disturbing because a university is a sacred place where, according to convention, even the police do not enter unless permitted by the vice chancellor. In a university it is the classroom, or the art studio in this case, which is the sanctum sanctorum. Here even another teacher does not enter when a class is in progress, because it is the place where a teacher and her student together explore the universe of knowledge. This relationship of teacher and student is inviolable. Interference in the classroom, by another who has no legal basis to be there, is a violation of the freedom of the teacher and the student. If this is violated with impunity then that society is truly damned. Imagine interfering with Dronacharya.

The second aspect of concern is the arrest of the student. His only crime was to create works of art that were objectionable to the vandals. Where in the Constitution is creating a work of art, which is to be judged by teachers in the fine arts faculty of a university, a crime? Where in the Constitution is it acceptable to keep an artist in jail for four days just because he has submitted his work for evaluation by his teachers? Are not the real violaters of the Constitution, the vandals and the police?

The third aspect is the suspension by the university of the acting dean of the faculty for permitting, against the vice-chancellor’s instructions, a protest exhibition by students mounted in response to the arrest — an exhibition of art erotica in the Indian tradition. If peaceful protest is proscribed in a university, and an exhibition of Indian art erotica banned, then are we not moving towards a society where Khajuraho and Konark may be blown up by mortars because they are considered objectionable, where the Kama Sutra will be banned because it is too explicit? The dean was right in ignoring the VC’s order. The VC was wrong to give such an order. He has no place in a university. In fact by his order he has earned a place among the vandals.

The fourth aspect is the role of the pro-VC, who along with the university engineer, personally removed the art exhibits and sealed the department. This is deplorable. It is indeed a sad day when a pro-VC, entrusted with the duty of protecting the university and nurturing the next generation of artists, acts as a member of the vandal brigade. How far have we fallen? The enemy of freedom now seems to be within us.

The fifth aspect concerns the actions of the police. This is the most alarming aspect. While one rotten university administration can be isolated and contained by a healthy society, and one faulty order reversed by a vigilant academic community, how does one deal with the lawless guardians of the law? Only the other custodians of the Constitution can stop the grim slide into what the former attorney general termed the talibanisation of the Indian mind.

The governor, as visitor of the university, must, in the strongest possible terms, reprimand and censure the vice chancellor and pro-vice chancellor. The governor must summon the director general of police and seek from him an explanation for the police action. The Supreme Court must do what it did in the case of the non-implementation of the ICDS scheme, and summon suo moto all the directors general of police, of all the states, and instruct them to curb such vandalism that is growing across the country. It is from the new frontiers which the artist scales that new ideas come. The artist must be protected. The artist must be honoured. We must do it for our own sake.

The writer is senior fellow, CSDS, Delhi

New Delhi, May 15 – The controversy over an arts student’s work that led to his arrest last week widened Tuesday as the University Grants Commission – asked the vice chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University – to explain why he has suspended the Fine Arts Faculty dean.

UGC chief S.K. Thorat sent a letter to MSU vice chancellor Manoj Soni seeking clarifications on the suspension of Shivaji Panikkar

The move came after Thorat met Human Resource Development minister Arjun Singh who had expressed concern over the development.

‘A letter has been sent to Soni asking him to clarify,’ the UGC chief told reporters.

Chandramohan, a final year arts student, was released on bail Monday, five days after he was arrested for alleged obscene portrayal of religious figures. His works, prepared as part of his studies and not meant for public exhibition, depicted several Hindu gods and goddesses as well as Jesus Christ in allegedly obscene postures.

Activists of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad -, the student wing of Gujarat’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party -, had last week barged into the MSU fine arts department – one of the well-known centres of India’s modern art – and vandalised the exhibits there.

While some Christian groups also protested the student’s works, his fellow students and faculty as well as several prominent artists who studied here came out in his support. MSU authorities later suspended Fine Arts Faculty dean Panikkar after he stood up in support of the student.

Concerned over the developments, a section of the MSU students urged the UGC to reinstate Panikkar, who was suspended after he opposed the ‘moral policing’.

‘We have received a letter Monday from the students about the developments,’ said Thorat.

‘This should not have happened at all,’ he said, adding that the issue could have been handled better.

Vadodara: Some clashes were reported here on Monday between supporters of the controversial art exhibition at Maharaja Sayajirao University here and right-wing activists, even as the student, Chandramohan, whose paintings drew flak from the Sangh Parivar, was released on bail.

Around 200 people, including human rights activist Shabnam Hashmi and filmmaker Madhushri Dutta and activists from Mumbai, took part in the protests outside the university. Ten persons were detained as the protesters blocked traffic.

Chandramohan, a student of the Fine Arts Faculty, who was arrested in the face of the Sangh Parivar protests for his negative portrayal of Hindu deities at the exhibition, was released from custody after he furnished a bond for Rs. 5,000. He spent five days in prison.

Joined by eminent people from the fine arts field in Vadodara, supporters of Chandramohan held placards that decried the role and interference of right-wing activists in the matter. — PTI

Then, on May 9, 2007 The Times of India shockingly reported that the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute that had been vandalized
purportedly by people offended by a passage in Laine’s book, has now
decided to support a ban on Laine’s book. (A research institute
seeking ban on a book? That is unheard of! )— The B.O.R.I. was
reportedly seeking a ban on Laine’s book in view of a recent ruling
by the Supreme Court rejecting an appeal challenging the Karnataka
government’s banning the book Dharmakarana that allegedly hurts the
sentiments of the followers of saint Basaveshvara and the Veerashaiva
community.

‘Hurt sentiments’ now threaten to become a judicially acceptable
ground for banning works of scholarship, literature, and art—some of
them alleged to be maliciously motivated. Most of the people —who
claim to be ‘hurt’— claim so on religious and sectarian grounds.
They also take the law in their hands as they did in vandalizing the
B.O.R.I. and got away without any punishment from the government of
Maharashtra.

Then there was the ‘public outcry’ against the Hollywood actor, Richard Gere’s

mock-erotic on-stage foreplay with Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty at
an AIDS-awareness show. This is supposed to have ‘hurt public
sentiments’. A PIL was filed against Gere and an overenthusiastic
magistrate promptly issued an arrest warrant against the American
actor. The magistrate has been transferred since. The frivolity of
such complaints ought to be prevented by law. There has to be
legislative protection, for instance, for artists such as M.F.Hussain
who has been harassed by known vigilante organization with no respect
for the values of civil society.

These various instances of ‘public outcry’ seem unrelated; but they
are not. They point to the fact that though 57 years have passed since
this nation embraced its Constitution, few Indians have grasped the
implications of the fundamental rights it enshrines. These rights are
the foundation of a liberal, democratic, secular and civil society
respectful of its own plurality. They are not the legacy of the
British Empire, as some believe; they are the foundation of a new and
modern secular nation-state, where all citizens are equally empowered,
and where the state and an individual are also equal in the eyes of
the law. Also, it has to be understood that secularism is a commitment
to neutrality towards all religious and sectarian beliefs and
practices; and not equal sensitivity to every religious sentiment. By
the way, what is religious sentiment? What is cultural tradition? In a
multicultural and multireligious society, can such sentiments be used
to tyrannise dissent, prevent debate and discussion, and ultimately to
make a mockery of fundamental rights? Will government actions and
judicial decisions be dictated by threats from rioters, vandals,
arsonists, and their extra-legal armies?

Our founding fathers bitterly argued its many features before
ratifying our Constitution. What they did not realize, then, was how
the Indian polity and its many constituent factions would translate it
into practice. They did not realize, for instance, that caste Hindu
politics would become stronger rather than melt away. They did not
realize that Hindu revivalism and Muslim fundamentalism would
temporarily lie low only to explode into communal riots, pogroms, and
state-abetted genocide just fifty years later. They did not realize
that adult franchise would not automatically result in cleaner
electoral politics. The did not foresee the slow and steady rise of
populism, linguistic and cultural chauvinism, waves of xenophobia, and
a decline in civil order.

They also failed to see that the British Empire’s real legacy would be
its bureaucratic apparatus and the police that were intended to rule a
subject people and not citizens with their rights in place.

In these, they left what has now become the foundation of corruption
and abuse of power. It is an intriguing point whether the elected
representatives of people corrupt the bureaucrat or vice versa. It is
just as hard to tell whether money is translated into electoral power
or it is the other way round. The apparent wealth of newly risen
politicians and political parties, as well as vigilante groups that go
on a rampage when their ‘sentiments are hurt’ goes unnoticed by
internal revenue officials, themselves under pressure from
politicians.

When the judiciary defends the Constitution that is found variously
inconvenient by people with anti-Constitutional interests, judicial
activism is seriously discussed by those who believe that Parliament
is above the Constitution. They do not pause to ask whether judicious
legislation is not the real answer to judicial activism or
intervention.

It is assumed by most people in India that the electoral system is for
laundering the character of any contestant. Most Indians see democracy
as rule by the majority and values as something that popularity polls
decide. People with criminal records believe that if they could become
legislators, they could themselves be the law that they already think
they are. This absurd logic seems to have a lot of support, too.

Banning any book is restricting citizens’ right to read. Banning a
controversial book is to shroud in secrecy the alleged controversial
elements in it without reasonable public discussion and debate. A
section of the public, or even a majority of public opinion, cannot
claim that what hurts its sentiments should therefore be hidden from
everyone else. As for burning books, Adolph Hitler—Mr. Thackeray’s
hero—tried to create a fascist culture out of the smoke of burnt
books. He failed. However, some Indians still feel they will succeed
by making illiteracy and uncivil behaviour the ideals of their
followers.

Our Constitution treats us all as equals regardless of our gender,
religion, caste, and creed. However, it does not ban the Manusmriti,
the Holy Koran, the Old and the New Testament, and other sacred books
that make all those discriminations. It simply empowers us to make a
choice of faith and belief. Our Constitution does not tell men and
women what to wear, or what to eat, or what to see, or what to read,
or what to think. We are a secular state that draws no lines between
the sacred and the profane. Our state is concerned solely with
this-worldly good governance and common public interest.

Lord Acton, the great 19th century English historian of liberty,
observed, “It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to
be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in
the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom
resist.” He, then, goes on to warn us, “But from the absolute will of
an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but
treason.”

Our electoral system is based on universal adult franchise. It
threatened caste Hindus with the prospect of facing empowered dalits,
scheduled castes, and tribes. It unsettled Hindu revivalists by
raising the spectre of the power of collective Muslim votes. It is now
making men fear women voters.

None of these fragments of the nation’s polity, at any level, want a
secular national mainstream to emerge. They do not even want to think
about it. They have been forced into alliances with their traditional
enemies. What they share in common is not the love of democracy but
its fear. They prefer populist protest, violent demonstration, and
public exercise of majority muscle to discussion, debate, or any other
rational response to what they do not agree with.

“Hurt sentiments’ is a euphemism for ‘justified anger’ whose violent
public expression is considered lawful.

Threatening a riot over any self-expression a group of people
disagrees with has become a political tool that hides behind existing
laws.

Take the recent case of Chandramohan, a fine arts student of the
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. A local lawyer, Niraj Jain,
invaded the university campus with a bunch of goons to disrupt the
young artist’s in-faculty and on-campus exhibition which was not meant
for the public. He demanded that the exhibition be immediately closed.
He also had the art student arrested.

The Dean of the Fine Arts Faculty, who stood firmly behind the
student, has since been suspended by the Vice Chancellor of the
University. This is obviously a case of political orchestration and a
threat to incite the public against a minority—in this case an
academic institution, its faculty, and its student community. The
Bajrang Dal, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the B.J.P. and their invisible
mentors the R.S.S. are obviously involved in this ugly affair. The
Vice Chancellor is a political appointee and a B.J.P. government is in
power in Gujarat.

Politicians and leaders of every ilk are afraid that the Constitution
has made India increasingly unpredictable in the last 57 years. They
find that the wrong people are empowered by the Constitution: the
dalit, women, or even the dissenting intellectual, scholar, writer, or
the avant garde artist. So most of them direct their rage and
desperation against the very book they take an oath of allegiance to,
namely the Constitution of India. However, they do this cleverly by
misusing and frivolously interpreting certain sections of the Indian
Penal Code.

We are fortunate to be over one billion people ruled by a Constitution
that does not allow any minority or majority to oppress the
individual. We are fortunate to speak many languages, practice
different religions, and have regional traditions that vary. We are
lucky to be recognized as individuals equal before one law.

However, how many democracies can a single nation-state hold? The
individual, from whose rights our state itself derives its sanctity,
is in a permanent minority of one. From that minority of one emerge
smaller or larger consensual groups, whether they are religious,
ethnic, linguistic, or sectarian. The right to express oneself, the
right to debate with others and to argue against them, the right to
publicize opinion and to criticize it, the right to question beliefs,
the right to propagate views—all these are interrelated and
inseparable.

Are we in a state of social, cultural, and political anarchy not
apprehended by our founding fathers 57 years ago? Is our system
beginning to crumble under the weight of our massive population and
its variegated constituents? Why do so many people in the ruling class
find our Constitution increasingly inconvenient? Why is everybody
afraid of fundamental rights?

The rights of the individual are the cornerstone of our Constitution.
Those who seek to curtail those rights by demanding bans on books,
paintings, plays, films, or public shows that ‘hurt their sentiments’
should openly say that the Constitution of India hurts their
sentiments most. They should also openly confess that they would not
hesitate to resort to inciting public feelings, causing riots, and
provoking arson and looting should the law not bend in their favour.

The outrageous arrest of Chandramohan, a final-year fine arts student
at the Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda, on 9 May, has confirmed
that the only right that is taken seriously in India today is the
right to take offence. The right to take offence is not a fundamental
right guaranteed by the Constitution, but all the same, it is the most
easily enforced of all rights. All you need is a local demagogue with
a taste for publicity, a few rampaging goons, policemen who favour the
violent over the reasonable, and a lower judiciary that is reluctant
to defy the mob.

Chandramohan, who was taken into custody by the Baroda police without
a proper warrant, after he had been roughed up by a gang of Vishwa
Hindu Parishad (VHP) activists, has been charged with public obscenity
and an attempt to incite communal disharmony. The images to which such
turbulent opposition has been mounted show a woman, perhaps a goddess,
birthing a man (which is no more fearful than the Lajja-gouri of Hindu
sacred art), and a crucifix with a penis (this, an obvious homage to
Robert Mapplethorpe). Both images retrieve the passionate human dramas
that lie at the core of sacred narratives. Both images insist upon the
artist’s right to revisit inherited lore, to reinvent images and
narratives, to integrate the sacred as an element of secular
experience.

The treatment meted out to this young artist follows a pattern of
violations against cultural freedom in India over the last two
decades. The programmatic persecution of M F Husain is the most
visible of these violations. But many artists, writers, film-makers,
scholars and other cultural practitioners have suffered the attentions
of the State, of pressure groups, and of informal alliances between
these forces: Anand Patwardhan, Surendran Nair, Sheba Chhachhi, Rekha
Rodwittiya, to name just four. Galleries, research institutes and
bookstores have been attacked, paintings and manuscripts have been
burned, concerts have been disrupted, and films refused screenings,
all in the name of the right to take offence.

The group is everything, even if it is a fiction or a fraction; the
individual is nothing. Paradoxically, in a Republic built to safeguard
individual rights, one can bargain with the State and even force State
action (or secure State inaction) by citing the sensitivities of a
group. But one cannot make the same effective claim on behalf of an
individual’s cultural freedom. Thus, for example, Laine’s study of
Shivaji was banned instantly when Maratha organisations agitated
against it. But Anand Patwardhan must fight legal battles for years
before Doordarshan agrees to screen one of his critical documentaries.

*

Champions of the right to take offence assume that they alone have the
right to speak of certain issues, that their imagination has primacy
over that of others. Thus, for instance, the VHP assumes that Hindu
icons can exist only as objects in a Hindutva discourse. This
explicitly denies the right of other discourses to construct them in
different ways, as the objects of scholarship, of art, of good-natured
humour, or of open-ended faith.

This explains the grimly ironic turn of events following
Chandramohan’s arrest, when the self-appointed custodians of Hindu
culture demanded the closure of an exhibition showing the vital role
of the erotic in Hindu sacred art. On 11 May, in silent protest, some
of Chandramohan’s fellow students put up an exhibition of
reproductions of images drawn from across 2500 years of Indian art.
These included the Gudimallam Shiva, perhaps the earliest known Shiva
image, which combines the lingam with an anthropomorphic form of the
deity; a Kushan mukha-linga or masked lingam; Lajja-gouris from Ellora
and Orissa, resplendent in their fecund nakedness; erotic statuary
from Modhera, Konark and Khajuraho; as well as Raga-mala paintings
from Rajasthan. All these images, which rank among the finest produced
through the centuries in the subcontinent, celebrate the sensuous and
the passionate dimensions of existence – which, in the Hindu
world-view, are inseparably twinned with the austere and the
contemplative.

This treasure of Hindu sacred art did not win the favour of the
establishment, which ordered the exhibition hall to be sealed. It
appears that the champions of a resurgent Hindu identity are acutely
embarrassed by the presence of the erotic at the centre of Hindu
sacred art. As they may well be, for the roots of Hindutva do not lie
in Hinduism. Rather, they lie in a crude mixture of German
romanticism, Victorian puritanism and Nazi methodology. What happens
next, we wonder? Will the champions of Hindutva go around the country
chipping away at temple murals, breaking down monuments, whitewashing
wall paintings, and burning manuscripts and folios? Perhaps they will
not stop until they have forced the unpredictable richness of Hindu
culture to conform to their own tunnel vision of life, art, image and
narrative.

The first move in the establishment of a fascist system is
thought-policing, the curtailment of the liberal imagination. We see
this in the breaching of the sanctity of academia, with goons
ransacking the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune, in
January 2004, or police entering the M S University campus last week.
And physical attack or arrest has become the first response to any
criticism or departure from convention. If anyone had a problem with
Chandramohan’s images, for instance, surely they could have resorted
to the old-fashioned option of talking to the artist? But conversation
has long ago vanished from the menu of problem-solving devices, as
India turns into an illiberal democracy.

Periodic elections do not, by themselves, guarantee a liberal
democracy; they only guarantee periodic changes of government. A true
democracy demands constant revitalisation of the spirit of openness,
generosity and liberality of opinion. Democracy is not an achieved set
of laws or a manual of instructions; it is a work in progress. It is a
space that allows diverse imaginations to interact, it is a community
of conversations.

Given the direction in which we are heading, can we recover democracy
as a community of conversations, rather than as a space segmented and
partitioned by communitarian claims? Can we allow for the interplay of
diverse imaginations, with none exerting a monopolistic claim on
experience? Can we productively reconstitute the same objects in
different discourses, without inviting assault on our civic and
cultural freedoms? Can we preserve nuance, detail and polychromy in
our accounts of ourselves – as complex selves in a complex society –
without being coerced into subscription towards one group identity or
another by colour-blind demagogues? Can we protect the right to
artistic truth and the right to critique?

And indeed, why must the artist be called upon to defend his or her
work, while the agitator goes free? The legal onus of proving that an
art-work can cause offence should weigh down the agitator. After all,
there is a strong structural similarity among all these incidents:
while the great public has no problem, a lunatic fringe that claims to
speak for the majority monopolises public space, and claims the right
to scrutinise the work of cultural practitioners. The crisis is
manufactured, not from spontaneous feeling, but in a motivated and
well-planned fashion.

In the Chandramohan case, the VHP activists knew exactly what they
were looking for, entering the display and heading straight for his
work. Perhaps it is time to add another minority to India’s social
fabric: the vulnerable minority of cultural practitioners.