Editor's Note: On May 13, 2007, Rajesh Kumar Singh had mailed us the article The Art and the Law. However MOA refused to publish this article in www.mattersofart.com. The following email received by MOA is a reponse to the same article published elsewhere.
Alas! Finally the Real Opportunists have Arrived….
This essay is a reply to an article written by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh titled "The Art and the Law" published in a supposedly respected web journal www.artconcerns.com of the December 2007 upload. Although, it doesn't elicit a reply like most trash that appears in our inbox. But since the trash has been publicized, as students of the Faculty of Fine Arts, M.S. University of Baroda who have suffered the most out of the unfortunate events that have occurred since May 9, 2007, we felt it was necessary to rectify all the misinformation and reveal the mala fide intentions the author of this essay as well as the publisher of this e-journal have attempted to produce. Before we elaborately engage with the merit of the argument, let us look at the credibility of the author himself. The editor of this e-journal informs us that the author is a Baroda-based art historian. Not only that, the author himself claims that he was present in the Faculty during those days of evaluation and couldn't manage to see the examination display due to evaluation procedures. We are thankful to the editor for his kind information about the author as a Baroda-based art historian and this information equally saddens us by the fact that the author who came out in public after six months of our miserable plight, not even a single time had visited any of us, nor given us any of his "valuable" advice. Like he claims, if the author is even slightly concerned about anything to do with the Faculty of Fine Arts, then, why did he not come out in the open and put forward his "legal" and "historical" views to us? We can only salute the audacity of this author to write such malicious content. We also salute the e-journal which published such trash. Sorry to say, it is not a "must-read" article, but that something one must throw into the waste box.
The first few paragraphs of the essay are clear indicators of the cowardice and cheap intentions of the author, particularly in maligning our respected teacher, a committed educationist, Prof. Shivaji Panikkar. In fact, being students of the Faculty, we are quite embarrassed to know, that you too wear a cap of being ex-students of the Faculty of Fine Arts, and yet, harm the interests of this prestigious institution, without even showing the minimum responsibility of keeping your facts right before producing trash like this.
Look at the kind of information Mr. Rajesh Singh has vehemently tried to circulate through his essay. In this context we would like to clarify a few facts. Our first clarification is regarding the annual display of Final year BVA and MVA students of the Faculty of Fine Arts. Though it is solely part of the annual evaluation and examination process, the Faculty as such never officially prohibited any art lovers, senior artists, alumni, friends or parents from visiting and giving their feedback to students, once the evaluation procedure was completed. This process of interaction is a sole prerogative of the students. Conventionally, this interaction is perceived as an integral part of the learning process of the students who have appeared for examinations each year. Even though the author is still not able to understand "whether the annual display of such exam-works are purely for internal evaluation, because I have never seen it restricted for the members of the public", we can clearly understand the motto behind the claims of confusion. What the author wants to produce through this seemingly innocent confusion is that the annual examination display was a "public exhibition". The dangerous part of the production of this confusion is that it goes hand in hand with the University's own misinterpretation of the entire events. The author even though desperately pretends himself as a legal expert, intentionally overlooks the question of what constitutes a public exhibition. First of all a public exhibition necessitates an invitation or an official communiqué from the concerned authorities. As far as our knowledge goes there is no official press note or any form of invitation card issued from the Faculty Office. Due to the lack of security measures anyone can walk into the Faculty at anytime or for that matter into any University premise. It however does not mean that these are public spaces like a market place, where anybody can buy or sell anything. If we follow Rajesh Singh's own criteria for ascertaining the "public exhibition" then our studios in the Faculty also come under its purview because everyday many people walk in our studios and see (and at times peep-in) the works that are "displayed" in the walls of our studio. Some of them may harm us physically and even bring the police to arrest us alleging that our class works hurt their sentiments. The production of this confusion itself is an apt example of the way in which the author aligns himself with Mr. Niraj Jain and the University top brass. This also makes us understand the condemnation of the author about the act of Mr. Niraj Jain is nothing other than a despicable attempt to hide his spiteful intentions.
The exhibition that had been put up on the 11th May 2007, titled come let us know more about Indian tradition was a civilized and democratic response to the misleading information that Mr. Niraj Jain was trying to propagate through the media, just to incite the passion of the masses and to gather political mileage through it. On the 9th May 2007, in front of all the people who were present in the Faculty of Fine Arts, Mr. Niraj Jain had addressed the media and claimed that this was the first instance in the history of India that Hindu deities had been depicted without clothes. All the students of the Faculty, not merely students studying in the Department of Art History & Aesthetics, who have been studying Indian art know the danger of such misinformation, and collectively decided to mount an exhibition with proper historical information. It was not merely an exhibition, but was a part of our protest against the University authorities in the context that our fellow student Chandra Mohan was still in jail, and the University did not bat an eyelid despite our repeated pleas. In fact some of our Faculty members, including then in-charge Dean Prof. Shivaji Panikkar asked us about the intention behind this exhibition, which was the moment we had decided to write a concept note for the exhibition, in order to avoid any kind of further manipulation.
Even after six months since the unfortunate events, we still remember the helplessness of our Faculty members with regard to our questions about the fate of our fellow student, who had already spent two nights in jail for no reason. We firmly believe that one doesn't need the same University's prior permission to protest against the misdeeds including their own. What we exercised was our constitutional right as the citizens of India to protest against the erosion of academic autonomy and freedom (not merely on the larger question of 'freedom of expression' in the general sense). The culture that we have inherited from this institution made us believe that it was better to express our protest in this peaceful and constructive manner rather than resorting to breaking window panes and vehicles outside, and creating public nuisance. We would like to know from the author of this essay that what would be his response if this attack on University autonomy and illegal arrest of a fellow student had happened while he was part of the student community.
We are happy that this author read the Constitution of India, even though it was not for any constructive purpose. The disheartening fact of this reading is forcing us to believe that the author might have just cut-and-paste these paragraphs from M.S. University 's Fact-finding committee's own legal experts' version of the Constitution because the author himself hardly understood any of what he quoted from the Constitution. As humble citizens of India , we also know freedom comes along with responsibility. Just to prove this point, one doesn't have to quote at length from the Constitution. But what the author gravely overlooked in the process of his cut-and-paste is:
"Exception—This section does not extend to-
"(a) any …drawing, painting, representation or figure- (i) …which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such …drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern, or (ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes…"
As students, we think, to understand the implication of the above statement of the constitution, one doesn't need legal expertise, but a minimum commitment to read them. With all respect, we salute the enlightened minds that envisaged and formalized the Constitution, definitely foreseeing people like Mr. Niraj Jain or a similar lot who may harm the fabric of the nation state by hijacking the freedom of an academic institution in the name of religious or other sentiments. The author of the essay felt terrific inconvenience about this constitutional provision that clearly goes against his 'legal' arguments. So he hurriedly states: "The exception at 292(2)(a) above may not be applicable in case of the disputed work due to its inflammatory content, especially when it provides the scope for its motive to be interpreted as deliberate. Since paintings are not accidentally made, the depiction is open to be interpreted as a deliberate attempt." If any visual representations are open to interpretations why has our art historian resorted to a single interpretation that clearly echoes with the opinion of a wayward politician like Mr. Niraj Jain alone? Because paintings are not accidentally made (even though no polemic such as accident and deliberate can be used as an apparatus for any critical analysis about the making of painting) how anybody can jump into such ridiculous conclusions that the young student has deliberately created inflammatory content and has "hurt the sentiments of people breaking the delicate fibre of social harmony." According to Mr. Rajesh Singh, "Only a court of law can decide on this matter, but prima facie it seems that the depictions run short of legal sanctity". If that is the case, after so much of deliberations why are the police authorities still not able to frame charges against Chandra Mohan after more than long six months? Why don't you help the police authorities with your legal expertise? For big people like you, the future and life of a student like Chandra Mohan is too insignificant a matter and not worthwhile for even a mere concern, but Mr. Rajesh Singh, at least don't paint all the world with your wicked colours.
Let us carefully look at the implications of the statements the author quoted from the Constitution. Is the author trying to say that the works done by Chandra Mohan are not a painting, drawing, representation or figure in the interest of science, literature or art? (Chandra Mohan had won a National Lalit Kala Akademi award for one of his works which was also part of his examination) Leave the answer of this aesthetical question to the learned lot. But the author should have at least shown minimum responsibility to put the work of this student Chandra Mohan as part of his learning process. This convenient refusal of the understanding of constitutional provisions indicates that the author's argument about the legality of the art work is a self-annihilating one. A small request to Mr. Rajesh Singh: don't treat a young student of the Faculty of Fine Arts as a scheming "terrorist" who is deliberately "breaking the delicate fibre of social harmony" by making some visual objects as part of his academic learning. This allegation of the author about a young student is not even a "historical blunder", but clearly amounts to an atrocity committed against the history of this prestigious institution.
One small remark about our month long protest: What is the illegitimate element in our protest? Is it due to our "inability" to break glasses off public buildings and resort to violence? Do you know that students who were part of the peaceful and creative protest have been repeatedly threatened, abused and physically harmed by the very same band of people who created the ruckus in the Faculty? If in your opinion, voicing one's protest against any injustice, whether it is any authority (in our case, the M.S. University authorities), or any kind of hooliganism, is an "illegitimate" act; if the word "protest" itself appears as an illegitimate category in your vocabulary, dear Art Historian, we pity you, because we are not spineless and opportunistic like you.
Your entire pretentious claims as an objective observer with regards to the so-called "historical" and "legal" blunders entirely collapses whence we reach your observations about the nature and function of pedagogy. The questions you had raised about the representation with regards to Khajuraho precisely display the malevolent intentions behind your article more than any of the arguments you shamelessly tried to put forward. If there is any element of civility left in you, this would be the opportunity for you to apologize for having the audacity to ask any teacher questions such as, "Depictions in Khajuraho show man and animal in fornication. Did Panikkar as curator of that show want his students to follow the same act?" or "If in Ajanta paintings women and men are depicted without clothes above the waist, would Panikkar want us to follow the same ancient dress code?"
First of all, Prof. Panikkar did not mount any exhibition, as we had already mentioned. The author's understanding about the function of curation and exhibition is appalling. We would like to know what the argument of the author is: once human civilization in the world started wearing clothes the representation of nudity vanished from the earth? Let him not forget that nude studies are still an integral part of our academic curriculum. As an Art historian what is the proposal of Mr. Rajesh Singh: a complete ban on nudity and sexuality from pictorial representation because we all wear clothes. If any teacher shows the erotic images of any past religious representation means he or she is pushing the students to replicate that in their real life. If that is your understanding about pedagogy and studies on the history of visual representations then there is no hope left with us to believe that you even possess minimum common sense.
The author's concern about the Code of Conduct of the employees is understandable. What the author missed out in this entire narration is the fact that both the then in-charge Dean, Prof. Shivaji Panikkar as well as staff and students of the Faculty of Fine Arts wrote innumerable memorandums and requests to the University for providing legal help to the student Chandra Mohan as well as for filing an FIR against Mr. Niraj Jain for intruding into Faculty premises and disrupting the examination procedure. The students' exhibition was also a part of our protest against University's much planned silence about both these matters. Within a few interactions with the University authorities, all of us came to the unsettling realization that University top brass and Mr. Niraj Jain were birds of the same feather. Following the author's own description, the act of Mr. Niraj Jain is amounted to the violation of constitutional rights. We are still at the losing end to the fact that the University's own people can violate all the codes of conduct while the author never considers them. If you are so concerned about the institution and "code of conduct" why don't you point fingers at the University Authorities for their open ended violation of the all the laws of the land? Coming to the point, in this context, what other options were left with us other than to use the mode of protest as well as to communicate with the world about this troublesome collusion? Unfortunately Prof. Shivaji Panikkar may not have referred back to "service rules" in order to protect his job before he took an active stand in protecting the interest of the student Chandra Mohan, protecting the sanctity of examination evaluation process and Faculty of Fine Arts itself. The author's pretensions and "legal conclusions" about the sin of approaching media doesn't take into account the circumstances where the entire University top brass along with the political goons like Mr. Niraj Jain propagated all mal-information about the students as well as the functioning and history of Faculty of Fine Arts.
If all of us just thought only about our own personal interests like the author, there wouldn't have been an iota of space left with us even for these comments. Please let us know why the author writes this article after a gap of more than six months about the "pitfalls" of our struggle even though he claims he is concerned about "context" more than anything else?
Hope the answer of this question befalls on him and the publisher alike, like a thunderbolt, because the rain of lies needs to be buried forever.
Students,
Faculty of Fine Arts,
M.S. University of Baroda
|
Hindu Sacred Art Offends Self-appointed Custodians of Hindu Culture
Ranjit Hoskote
In a grimly ironic turn of events following the May 9, 2007 arrest, without a proper warrant, of Chandramohan, a final-year fine arts student at the M S University, Baroda, the self-appointed custodians of Hindu culture have now demanded the closure of an exhibition showing the vital role of the erotic in Hindu sacred art.
Earlier today, 11 May, students of the Faculty of Fine Arts at the M S University put up an exhibition of reproductions of images drawn from across 2500 years of Indian art. In a silent protest against the
brutality with which their fellow student has been treated for exhibiting works that BJP and VHP activists claim are offensive and obscene, the students put up pictures of the Gudimallam Shiva, perhaps the earliest known Shiva image, which combines the lingam with an anthropomorphic form; 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, 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. The Pro Vice Chancellor issued a verbal request that the exhibition be closed, which the Dean of the Fine Arts Faculty, Dr
Shivaji Panikkar, ignored. A written order followed, and was similarly ignored. The Pro Vice Chancellor then arrived at the venue, accompanied by some members of the Syndicate of the University. They
requested Dr Panikkar to close down the exhibition, then ordered him to do so. When it became clear that the Dean would not bend to their will, they had the exhibition locked.
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? Will the champions of Hindutva go around the country destroying temple murals, breaking down monuments, and burning manuscripts and folios? |
