Why are Goan artists silent?
What does the silence of Goan artists about attacks by the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti mean, asks SANDESH PRABHUDESAI
Should we thank Girish Karnad? Or should we feel ashamed of ourselves as Goans?
Renowned actor and playwright Karnad quit the prestigious Goa Development Council in protest against the humiliating treatment meted out to artist and Sanskrit scholar Jose Pereira. When a tiny group like the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) cried that Jose-bab’s paintings had hurt their religious sentiments, tears apparently flowed down the cheeks of our state authorities. The police bluntly suggested that the organisers shut down the exhibition!
Whither Democracy? Whither Freedom of Expression?
Except a handful of artists and thinkers who protested, a majority of the art community remained tight lipped over the issue. In fact, some gave weird reactions: “I support Karnad’s opinion, but he should have not taken such a drastic step; of resigning from the Council.” Who were they supporting; Karnad or Chief Minister Digambar Kamat – the bold protestor or the ‘power’ful ruler?
And what did the CM do to persuade Karnad to withdraw his resignation? Karnad claims the CM assured that he would safeguard the interests of artists in future. When a local TV channel asked Digambar-bab, he denied it: “What assurance? I just spoke to him and requested him to withdraw his resignation.” Who is right; Karnad or the CM?
This is not the first time. It also happened when Churchill Alemao, then just an MLA, publicly demanded that ‘The Da Vinci Code’ film should not be screened. It was banned in Goa!
It also happened two years ago during IFFI. The HJS and Sanatan Sanstha objected to a 44-year-old Films Division documentary by M F Hussain. It had nothing objectionable. Still, our ‘pro-people’ chief minister requested the organisers not to screen it. It was only when eminent delegates expressed their outrage to the organisers that it was screened later.
Subodh Kerkar’s sketches of Lord Ganesh were objected to by the same HJS and Sanatan Sanstha. He was provided police protection, but only after he demanded it, and for just two days. The state authorities did not pro-actively move to protect his freedom of expression.
Does our state government stand for freedom of expression, or does it just pander to all forms of fanaticism?
I ask this for a reason. Our chief minister (who is also the Minister for Art & Culture) is very proud that under him, Goa has become the first state in the country to formulate a cultural policy. We are all proud of him for this.
What does the policy say?
Clause 1, the Preamble, has a sub-section, 1.1, which states: ‘The Government of Goa recognises the fact that cultural rights are human rights.’ It also lists eight ‘Principles of Cultural Policy’. The first three are: ‘The cultural policy is: (a) for the citizens to achieve individual creativity; (b) to ensure equality of access to cultural life; (c) to safeguard freedom of expression.’ [alphabetical numbering ours]
That’s not all. It has a special section, 2.3, called Creation. Its first three statements are:
2.3. Creation
(a) The government is fully committed to respect and protect the creative freedom of the artists and writers as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and within the limits set out by the laws of the country.
(b) The government would welcome new initiatives by the artists and writers and the NGOs dedicated to their cause.
(c) The government of Goa is dedicated to spot creative cultural talent and would encourage novelty, innovation and creativity in all the spheres of state’s cultural life.
The question is very simple. How does Chief Minister Digambar Kamat view the above developments – ‘The Da Vinci Code’ film, the M F Hussain documentary, Subodh Kerkar’s paintings, and Jose Pereira’s paintings – in the light of his ‘proud’ Cultural Policy?
Do his actions match or contradict the policy? Have cultural rights been protected as human rights?
Especially if it is innovative or new, any cultural expression is bound to be criticised. But what was objected to here was neither. ‘The Da Vinci Code’ was a film based on a 2003 bestseller by Dan Brown, translated in 44 languages all over the world. The book was neither objected to nor banned. The film was released three years later, after over 80 million books were sold.
M F Hussain’s film ‘Through the Eyes of a Painter’ was a documentary he produced in 1966, about his experiences in Rajasthan. It won the Golden Bear at the prestigious Berlin Film Festival that year. Its screening was stopped at the 39th IFFI in 2008, 42 years later!
Subodh Kerkar’s creative sketches of Lord Ganesh, the HJS said, were an insult to Hindus. Subodh says that he could not ever dream of insulting the God he personally believes in and worships.
Dr Jose Pereira’s painting of Lord Krishna is based on the ‘Geeta Govinda’, and a traditional palace mural in Kerala. The Sanskrit scholar defends his painting, quoting from the ‘Geeta Govinda’ in the original Sanskrit.
In all these cases, the government that is so proud of its Cultural Policy, actually suppressed the human rights it claimed to be protecting.
No doubt these art forms could be objected to. Even those who take the most extreme stands on such issues have a right to object. It’s their freedom of expression. That’s why the media publishes or telecasts both views.
But what does the government stand for? Surrender before the extremists without even studying the issue? Despite the talk of human rights in the Cultural Policy, that’s what their actions seem to suggest.
I wonder sometimes whether organisations like the HJS or Sanatan Sanstha sincerely practice what they preach. En route to Canacona, at Karmal Ghat, is a shed housing a ‘Ganpati temple’ that recently mushroomed on the roadside, because one root of a tree looked like the trunk of Lord Ganesh. Now, on every Tuesday, so-called devotees block the National Highway on this dangerous Ghat to perform a ‘Mahapooja’. Even though there are Supreme Court orders against blocking roads for such purposes, neither the Sanatan Sanstha nor the HJS has ever objected to this. Do they support this nuisance in the name of God on a busy public road?
Members of these outfits pull the temple chariots (Rath) in Goan temples, many of which have nude figures, often in compromising positions, painted or carved on them. Don’t they find anything ‘objectionable’ in this?
I asked this question to a Sanatan Sanstha leader during a TV debate I recently conducted. His answer was downright evasive: “Nobody has brought this to our notice yet…” he said. Strange. And I will find it even more strange if they continue to ignore it, even after I have, now, publicly ‘brought it to their notice’.