Now that the Indian government has disassociated itself from the remarks made by the spokespersons of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) about Prophet Muhammad and reiterated the nation’s commitment to democracy and secular values, it is time to reflect on the conduct of certain nations, specially Qatar, which took umbrage at the remarks made against the Prophet during a television debate in India.
The first point is that there cannot be a resolution of issues pertaining to inter-religious conflict unless there is understanding and harmony. Can nations which believe that the standards that they demand from others will not apply to them, expect reciprocity and mutual respect? Indians have a right to demand an end to double standards.
A case in point is Qatar—an Arab nation with a population of just under 29 lakh, which is less than the population of Jaipur. Out of them, only 3 lakh are Qatari citizens.
The rest are expatriates. Article 1 of its Constitution says Qatar is an Arab State and its religion is Islam, and “the Islamic Law is the main source of its legislations”. Article 7 of the Constitution deals with foreign policy and declares that it is based on the principle of maintaining international peace and security and “non-interference in internal affairs of the State, and cooperation with peace-loving nations”.
This brings us to the hospitality and citizenship accorded by the State of Qatar to the painter, Maqbool Fida Husain, who depicted Hindu gods and goddesses in a despicable manner in his paintings before he fled India. And how does the grand principle of “non-interference” gel with Qatar’s conduct vis-a-vis M F Husain, a fugitive from the law?
D P Sinha of Sanskar Bharati published a detailed note many years ago along with photographs of some of the most reprehensible paintings of Husain, which constitute a damning charge sheet of the painter. Prafull Goradia and K R Phanda, the authors of Anti-Hindus, published in 2003, have done great public service by reproducing Sinha’s charge sheet.
Here are the details: In his painting called Durga, the Goddess is shown in sexual union with a tiger; in Rescuing Sita, the artist shows a naked Sita astride a naked Hanuman’s tail (“Hanuman’s tail as a phallic symbol”); Lord Vishnu is generally painted with four hands holding a shankh, a padma, a gada and a chakra, but the hands of Vishnu are amputated and his legs have been cut off—a maimed, mutilated and exhausted Vishnu reclines on his spouse Lakshmi and his vahan Garuda.
Further, we have Goddess Saraswati, who the Hindus revere as the Goddess of learning draped in white (Shubra vastraanvita), shown naked, as also Goddess Lakshmi and she is perched on the head of Lord Ganesh.
Sinha, then, refers to two paintings of Hanuman. In one, he is three-faced and there is a nude couple—“The identity of the woman is not in doubt. The erect genital of Hanuman is bent in the direction of the female. The obscenity is obvious,” says the author of the note. In the other painting, a naked Sita is sitting on the naked thigh of Ravan and a naked Hanuman is attacking him.
But, this is not all. In another painting Husain depicts the most revered Gitopadesha scene replacing Lord Krishna with George Washington on the chariot. Sinha concludes that Husain replaces Lord Krishna with George Washington because in Husain’s eyes “Lord Krishna is no god and stands denigrated and reduced to the level of a mere human being”.
In the other painting, should the cutting of hands and legs of Vishnu “be regarded as creative freedom or deliberate affront to Hindu sensibility?” he asks. But is Husain’s iconoclasm uniform? Far from it. Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter is “the embodiment of serenity and grace” and fully clothed.
Coming back to the State of Qatar, Indians have a right to ask: “How can you play a willing and generous host to a man who has vilified the religion and deities of a billion Hindus? Just look at the size of the religious group that Husain has hurt. It is three-hundred times the population of Qatar. Having taken this unfortunate and arguably unfriendly decision vis-a-vis the vast majority of India’s citizens, does it now lie ill in your mouth to be critical of India on something that happened in news television?”
Husain migrated to Qatar and accused the Hindus of “hounding him”. Far from it. All that the secular, democratic Hindus did was to file cases against him in court. If he had done this to an icon of Islam, one can imagine what would have been
his fate.
So, what should one say to the people of Qatar? It is possible that you were unaware of the extent of hurt that Husain had caused to the majority of Indians. But, now that the facts are before you, you should make amends for having entertained an obnoxious blasphemer and restore India-Qatar relations to where it ought to be, ensuring mutual respect and understanding for each other’s citizens. Just a peep into the social media these days will tell the Qataris how angry and disappointed Indians are on L’Affaire Husain.
Please don’t get carried away by the anti-India rhetoric in some quarters. Grasp the sense of hurt among the billion-strong Hindus in India and take initiatives which will restore harmony between the two countries. India and Qatar have a lot at stake. Let fair play and reciprocity rule the ties between the two nations. Over to Doha!
A Surya Prakash
Former chairman of Prasar Bharati and Scholar, Democracy Studies
(suryamedia@gmail.com)