Refutation of false attribution in the M. S.University Report

Refutation of false attribution in the M. S.University Report



My statement printed below, the only one issued by me on 11 May 2007 on the recent events in Baroda is self-explanatory about my unequivocal position on the issues concerned. I have not commented on the work of the student in question, verbally or in print and have not issued the statement or comments attributed to me in the Report circulated by the M.S.University (A Brief Report on the Recent Incidences At the MSU Baroda/ 09 May 2007 to 11 May 2007). It is the assault on the Fine Arts College premises by outsiders during the annual assessment that needs to be censured in no uncertain terms. I would like to reaffirm my commitment to the freedom of academic and creative expression.

In my opinion the Acting Dean Prof Shivaji Panikker supported by the staff of the Faculty has acted responsibly in this matter, upholding the best academic and administrative traditions of the Faculty of Fine Arts and the M. S. University and his suspension should be revoked without any preconditions.



Gulammohammed Sheikh

19 May 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement issued on 11. 05. 2007


Dear friends


You must have known through media reports that Chandra Mohan, a student from the Department of Graphics at the Fine Arts College in Baroda has been arrested on 9th of May 2007 for making an allegedly controversial painting depicting nude figures with some religious motifs. The arrest followed the storming of the university premises by a group of outsiders. The work in question was part of a display in the college premises for assessment by a team of examiners for a Master’s degree in Fine Arts. Charged with sections 153 and 114 as well as sections 295 A and 295 B, he has been denied bail and is presently in Central Jail, Baroda.


In a civilized society any dispute on a controversial depiction or content of a work of art can be dealt with through dialogue and consultation with experts in the field rather than left to self-appointed moral police employing coercive means. In the present case, the outsiders taking law into their hands barged into the university campus without prior permission, did not consult or inform the Dean of the Faculty before disrupting the annual examinations in progress. The reports are that they returned again to abuse the Dean and threatened him with dire consequences.


Such an instance of assault on a student by outsiders in the university premises is unprecedented in the history of the Faculty of Fine Arts and must be condemned in no uncertain terms. The Fine Arts College known nationally and internationally for upholding the highest standards of creative and critical practice has also earned reputation for its firm commitment to the freedom of expression. The former authorities of the university like Smt. Hansa Mehta, the very first Vice Chancellor in the fifties up to Prof. Bhikhu Parekh in the eighties have stood by the Faculty and its ideals. The present assault seems to strike at the very ideals on which it was built by pioneering artist-academics and supported by enlightened university authorities. The present administration of the university has not initiated any action against the trespassers or applied for bail for the victimized student. The students and staff of the Fine Arts College have organized a dharna and the Acting Dean, Prof. Shivaji Panikker has planned to undertake a hunger strike in the College premises against the assault on the student and callous attitude of the university authorities


As an alumnus and former teacher of the Faculty of Fine Arts, I fear these developments may imperil the working of an institution which in many ways has formed our lives; and is indeed an integral part of what we are today. I hope all other alumni and teachers as well as concerned artists and intellectuals of the country will come forward to protect it in its moment of crisis when the values it stands for are threatened.


Gulammohammed Sheikh

your truth is not true - nikhileswar baruah

from nikhileswar baruah hide details 2:52 am (6 hours ago)
to manojsoni@msubaroda.ac.in
date May 21, 2007 2:52 AM
subject your truth is not true.
signed-by yahoo.co.in



dear mr. manoj soni,
read your version of truth regarding the recent fine arts fiasco. i would like to request you not to misuse your position by issuing a statement which is partial, biased and misleading.
as an eye witness to the unfortunate events at the fine arts faculty on 9th may,2007,(and afterwards) i have a few things to say.

1. your statement says that "the citizens of vadodara lodged their strong protest" against some of the works by chandra mahon. do you think five/six people represent the citizens of vadodara? were they authorised or deputed by some kind of civic consensus?
it is alarming how loosely you use the term "citizens", making it sound as if the whole vadodara was on one side and the fine arts faculty was on the other side. wish you had some respect for facts. anybody (with an objective view of course) who witnessed the fine arts events from 9th may to 14th may will vouch for the fact that there are more people fighting for the fine arts faculty than people who were fighting against it. are "we" not citizens? or do we need some kind of approval/sanction to become citizens?

2. the news paper report saying that the display was open for public was a news paper report, not an announcement from the faculty authorities inviting general public( unlike fine arts fair, where fine arts faculty invites general public by means of invitation letters, announcements, poster campaign etc.). traditionally the fine arts annual display is open to people who are somehow related to fine arts ( friends and parents of students, artists, ex-students, art lovers etc.), who understand the nuances of art and know that a student's work (whatever the image) displayed within an academic institute can never be so influential as to disturb the fabric of a democratic society.
do you really expect us to believe that mr. niraj jain walked into the faculty as an innocent art lover without any agenda and spoted the so called "objectionable" works just by chance?
you also mentioned that some teachers sent out sms's inviting people for the annual display. i do not know if you use a mobile phone. let me tell you that when you send out group sms, it goes to people who are already on your phone book (meaning friends, family, acquaintances etc.), not to any tom, dick and harry who are out there with a pathetic agenda of civilising a society which is already civilised beyond their grasp.

3. you have twisted the chronology of events to protect people like niraj jain. neither police nor media "arrived" at the faculty. they came with niraj jain. why did he need media and police if he just wanted to express his complain to the concerned student and to the head of the institute?
the-in-charge dean did not ask for police protection as your statement states. he asked your office for protection from both the "concerned citizens" and the police. by the time the in-charge-dean came to know about the incident, the student was already arrested without informing the faculty or university authorities, after being manhandled by niraj jain and his group ( since you seem to base your arguments on media reports, please note that photograph of niraj jain manhandling chandra mohan was published in the news papers).
and when the students went to the police station later that evening to lodge a complain against niraj jain, the police did not even file an f.i.r. what kind of 'relevant legal provision" is this?

4. the in charge dean and faculty members were desperately trying to get in touch with your office. but no help came from the university authorities during the six/seven hours when mr. niraj jain was displaying his concern in the faculty premises. so when you say "university authorities deputed an official to provide all the possible(?!) help to the student", can you specify the date and the time? and if the "official" has any name or rank please? did the university appoint a lawyer (as it should have) so that the student can be released immediately, at least on bail?

5.you found it important to emphasise the point, by printing it in bold letters, that the protest (led by niraj jain) was verbal and peaceful(?!?!), nothing was damaged and nobody was injured. do you think they obliged us by not injuring anyone or by not damaging anything? or do you think they showed great restrain(applaud!) by not employing their usual methods?

6. subsequently, can you tell us how many of these organisations, groups, individuals of high repute ( who " strongly urged the university officials to intervenes and disallow the exhibition of such works") remain after you deduct those who wear the same political colour as mr. niraj jain? or do you have any reason to give more weightage to their side?

7. to ask the victim(the fine arts faculty) to express regret and apology was the height of absurdity beyond any logical understanding. do you think it is normal? do you really think so?

8. what do you mean by "displaying nude paintings in the name of indian culture"? they are part of indian culture. the works displayed(as a protest exhibition) were samples from traditional indian paintings and sculptures, not something created by the in-charge-dean or the students to hurt religious sentiments! we are all proud of our indian culture. you people are different though, ashamed of your own glorious culture and heritage.

9. your statement says "The Faculty of Fine Arts is an integral part of the prestigious The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, known for its substantial contribution in placing Gujarat & Baroda on international cultural scene, and as such cannot be left solely on the whims & wishes of any one individual."
your statement also says that other faculty members were present(in support) in the meeting when the in-charge-dean refused to apologise. try as you may, but the fact you can't deny is that majority of faculty members and students are protesting against the suspension of the in-charge-dean. so there is no question of "whims and wishes of one individual". the faculty of fine arts is an institute of international repute ( as you also mentioned it twice in your statement) because of these people, not because of your bunch of "concerned citizens", nor because of, sorry to point this out, the university authorities.

dr. shivji panikkar is not only a respected teacher, but also a reputed scholar with undisputed integrity and commitment. if some press report says that he compared the fine arts faculty to his bedroom, it is either a creative reporting, or a manipulation to fulfil some vested interest. i don't know which world do you belong to. but there are enough sane people in the society, thank you very much.

10. "The Security, particularly in the Faculty of Fine Arts, has been enhanced right from 09 May 2007. The Security personnel are ensuring that only those students and Members of the University fraternity are allowed entry inside the Faculty Campus who hold valid identity card or authentic identity document. Due care is also taken not to put genuine visitors to any inconvenience. The campus is totally peaceful." this is an utter lie. everybody and anybody could walk into the faculty till 13th may. and the faculty premises was crowded with all kinds of people. otherwise how could "organisations, groups, and individuals of high repute" who complained to you could see the "nude paintings in the name of indian culture" displayed inside the faculty, that too not in the front side but much inside? or did you give them permission to enter the faculty, so that they could complain to you? or was that the "due care" taken for "genuine visitors"? who was in charge of deciding who is a genuine visitor and who was not? the media was present inside the faculty almost round the clock. also one day when the fine arts students were on a sit-out protest, a group of a.b.v.p. members walked into the faculty holding, not i-cards, but placards (and shouting abusive slogans). did your security personal considered the tilak on their forehead as identity proof and let them in?
the issue of identity card and not allowing outsiders(including ex-students and artists, not as "genuine" as some others it seems!) came up only in the evening of 13th may, at 6pm to be precise. so obviously it had nothing to do with security, but insecurity on your part in the wake of the national level protest planed for the next day. the m.s.u. authorities and the police tried their best to stop the national level protest on 14th of may, though failed miserably. what are you scared of if you are right?
only truth in this part of the statement is that the campus is totally peaceful. what you forgot to mention is that it is peaceful not because of the police, or security, or the university authority, but because of the maturity of the fine arts students, teachers and their supporters.

11. mr. niraj jain saw to it that the "objectionable" works get as much publicity as possible, more than chandra mahon could even dream of, by reprinting it , or by describing the images to the media. when the police locked up the works, niraj jain led a group of media persons to take photographs of the images. the police officer in charge tried to stop them, but gave in eventually (niraj jain seems to have some super power). what was the point of removing the works from public view if they were going to be publicised? later that afternoon, when a christian lady was complaining that she could not see the work showing the cross, mr. jain promised her that he will show it to her. if it is simply a question of "hurting public sentiment", who did a greater damage, one who painted it, or one who took it to a wider audience/public ?

the summary of your story is that-
(a) niraj jain is an ideal citizen who is interested in nothing else but peace and harmony in society. and he was duly supported by the citizens of vadodara.
(b) chandra mohan is a criminal, deserved to be arrested (and jailed, if possible).
(c) dr. shivji panikkar is an adamant, arrogant, irresponsible person whose profession is to disobey orders from higher authorities.
(d) the artists, art lovers, academicians, activists and intellectuals from various fields, who stood up for the fine arts students and teachers, have no knowledge of art and culture, let alone social responsibilities. (may be we should take a course on indian art and culture from you and niraj jain?)

now, lets come to the point.
why are you taking so much of effort/trouble to justify some niraj jain, when, on the other hand, you were least bothered when one of your student was arrested, other students and teachers were insulted and terrorised by outsiders inside the university campus? why?
what could be your interest in an academic institution if you are not interested in academic procedure and safety of the students?
i am surprised that you head an institution of such repute as m.s.u. but i guess in today's time, one should not be surprised.
hope you have a reply.

yours shamefully,

nikhiledswar baruah

From Rabindra Bharati University

Dear Friends,
What has occured in Baroda is indeed deplorable and I wholeheartedly support every effort being made to register protest against the incident.

However, while the Baroda incident has reached unprecedented proportions, incidents of curbing artistic freedom and expression in academic institutions elsewhere in India are not unknown. I, personally, as a teaching member of the Faculty of Visual Arts, Rabindra Bharati University, Kolkata have been witness to a similar occurence.
Roughly a couple of years ago, a young sculptor, Debanjan Ray was executing a project on a Lalit Kala grant at our Faculty under the then Dean, Prof. Partha Pratim Deb. As a part of his project, he was taking plaster moulds of live nude models, some of whom happened to be students of the faculty, in the faculty premises with the knowledge and permission of some members of the faculty. At the Dean's behest and Debanjan's request, my artist-colleague, Chhatrapati Dutta was requested to make a video recording of the project in-process.

In due course, a parent of one of Debanjan's student-model's made a complaint to the university authorities saying that his son had been unwittingly coerced into modeling nude for Debanjan's project and that a video was also made of the process, and that, according to him, the whole was immoral, obscene and impermissible. The parent, incidentally, also happens to be Principal of the Indian Art College, Kolkata that is affiliated to our university.

Consequently, the university instituted an enquiry commission, reports were published, Debanjan withdrew his project from the Faculty and completed it elsewhere, the Dean finished his term and refused a second extension, a second enquiry was instituted and concluded against Chhatrapati, and consequently he too has resigned. The results of the second enquiry commission have not been made known, nor has the university responded in any way to Chhatrapati's resignation, even though it has been months now. All there is is an eerie silence.

To our shame, I have to add here that, in fear of persecution, we as a faculty have failed to protest against the manner in which our colleagues, artists, and art practice have been victimised by the authorities. We have been completely silent despite being subjected to unacceptable moral policing, driven by both personal and political agenda. Questions have been raised about whether or not such practice is within the prescribed curriculum, whether or not the Dean is the final authority on granting permission in such matters, what is immoral/obscene in art practice, etc - all of it has gone unaddressed and remained enmeshed in bureaucratic red tape.

M.F. Husain, Chandramohan, Chhatrapati, and I'm sure countless others are victims of a frightening wave of bigotry and moral policing that is threatening to engulf art education and thereby, art practice in India - it cannot be allowed to continue unchecked. As an artist and, even more so as an academic, I raise my voice in protest against it.

Dr. Paula Sengupta
Sr. Lecturer
Dept. of Graphics (Printmaking)
Faculty of Visual Arts
Rabindra Bharati University
Kolkata

The truth according to the office of the Chancellor with vices

Sir,

I am utterly dismayed by the manner in which you have handled the recent high handed assault by BJP Members, led by Mr. Niraj Jain, on the student(s)and the subsequent suspension of the most eminent Dean in Charge of the Faculty of Arts at the MS University in Baroda. This kind of misuse of Political Power brings shame on us all.

Yours, deeply pained - Dr. J.A. Kohiyar

From: manojsoni@msubaroda.ac.in
To: "Jehangir Kohiyar" jeraifit@hotmail.com
Subject: Truth
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:27:36 +0530 (IST)

Dear Dr. Kohiyar

The attachment to this mail caries a Statement of Facts about the recent incidences at the Faculty of Fine Arts, MSU. If you desire to know the truth, the atachment may be accessed. I hope that you msut have cared to or have had an opportunity to look at the "Works of Art" at the centre of the controversy, as originally displyed.

Yours equally pained
Manoj


Statement of facts about the Recent Incidences At the MSU, Baroda
09May 2007 – 11 May 2007


The Maharaja Sayajirao Universiy of Baroda is amongst the top Universities in the country with very high global repute. The Faculty of Fine Arts is amongst its very best Faculties and is one of the top ranking institutions world-wide in the field of Fine Arts.

On 9 May 2007, the citizens of Vadodara lodged their strong protest at the Faculty of Fine Arts, of the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. The protest was against an exhibition displaying a number of artworks deeply hurting the sentiments of Faith and decency of the society at large.

It is noteworthy that during his telephonic conversation with the Vice-Chancellor over this incidence of protest, the then in-charge Dean Professor S. K. Panniker (who is currently suspended from the University Services) also termed these works of art as “objectionable”.

The protest was verbal and peaceful. The citizens had come to the Faculty of Fine Arts having read a news item in the Times of India dated 07 May 2007 and Gujarati daily Sandesh dated 09 May 2007. These news items mentioned that the Works of Art created by the students of the Faculty as a part of their Annual Examination were open for public display on the 9th May 2007. Such public display has been a tradition. In fact, one of the teachers of the Faculty had sent messages through SMS inviting people to the display at the Faculty of Fine Arts. Thus, the claim in the media that the display was not open for public is untrue.

These citizens noticed that some of the works of Art displayed at the Faculty were highly deplorable.

One of the so-called work of Art was a huge Christian Cross where Lord Jesus Christ was shown with his penis out on the Cross, his palms and feet hanging from the two sides and the bottom of the Cross, respectively. Semen was shown as dropping out of his penis into a real toilet commode placed beneath the Cross. The toilet contained fishes.

Another very large sized painting showed a woman in nude posture. A baby was shown as attempting to come out of the vagina of the women. The picture depicted the women trying to attack the baby with a Trishul. The painting had the words “DURGA MATA” written at the bottom.

Similarly Lord Shiva and Lord Visnhu were also depicted in a highly derogatory manner in other so-called works of Art.

The media had already arrived by this time and were witnessing and recording / photographing the events that followed.

When the group of citizens led by Mr. Niraj Jain, as per his letter, protested and requested the student who had created these so-called works of Art to remove these objectionable works of Art from public display, the student refused to do so. Again the group of citizens requested Professor Panniker, the then in-charge Dean of the Faculty to intervene and get those objectionable works of art removed from public display. Professor Panniker refused to do so.

The protest was entirely peaceful and verbal. No damage was caused to the property of the University. No injury whatsoever was caused to any person.

On the request of the then in-charge Dean, the University officials arranged for police reinforcement with a request to provide necessary protection. The police promptly arrived at the venue. After a very long and consistent persuasion, those objectionable works of art were removed and placed in a room, which was locked and sealed by the police on the basis of a complaint filed by Mr. Niraj Jain and in concurrence with the provision of relevant Law. None of the so-called works of art was damaged in any manner.

On the basis of a police complaint filed by Shri Niraj Jain in his individual capacity as a citizen, the student – Mr. Chandra Mohan, who had created those objectionable works of Art was arrested by police under relevant legal provisions. The University authorities deputed an official to provide all the possible help to the student.

Subsequently, the University received a high number of representations and memoranda from several organizations, groups, individuals of high repute and common people from a cross section of society strongly urging the University officials to intervene and disallow the exhibition of such works of art that deeply hurt and offend the sentiments of Faith of various communities.

Thus, with a view to respect the sentiments of Faith of very large communities, as well as honoring the University’s social sensitivity and responsibility, the University officials including the Pro-Vice Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor requested Professor S. K. Panniker, the then in-charge Dean of the Faculty several times to wind-up the exhibition.

Since the exhibition had already hurt the sentiments of Faith of very large societies, the then in-charge Dean of the Faculty was also requested to issue a statement expressing at least regret and apology over such unintentional consequence of the exhibition. During such meetings of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor with Professor Panniker, the then in-charge Dean, his colleagues were also present.

The then Faculty in-charge Dean, unfortunately, did not heed these requests. Regrettably, adding fuel to the fire, he made such offending public statements, which further hurt and flared up the common citizens’ feelings demanding strong action. In one such statements printed by the media, for instance, Professor Panniker, the then in-charge Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts, is quoted as saying that the Faculty of Fine Arts is like his personal bedroom and therefore, he is free to do whatever he desires there! Thus, the protest of the citizens of the city grew manifolds. Consequently, there was a huge public outcry from a cross section of society including the students of the University, demanding strong action in the matter.

As if this was not enough, in sheer defiance of the University officials requests and even executive orders, on 11th May 2007, once again, the then in-charge Dean, organized an exhibition in the evening displaying nude paintings in the name of and Indian culture!

Since this unwarranted act of the then in-charge Dean could have sparked large-scale social disharmony and caused disruption, the University Authority deputed two Deputy Registrars and one Assistant Registrar for requesting the in-charge Dean Prof. Panniker, for not organizing the said exhibition. When these officials reached the Faculty and spoke to the then in-charge Dean, he refused point blank to stop the display and reacted that he was not required to take permission of anybody including University Authority for doing anything in the Faculty.

Upon this, the Authority deputed Registrar-in-charge with a written order directing the in-charge Dean to close the display. After acknowledging the letter of the Registrar-in-charge after a lot of dilly-dallying, Prof. Panniker adamantly continued on his stand of not closing the display and said he would keep the display open throughout the night and disobey the University authority’s lawful orders.

In spite of such disobedient behaviour of the then in-charge Dean, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University, Professor S. M. Joshi, along with the Senate and Syndicate members and leading citizens of the city went personally to the Faculty premises and repeatedly requested the in-charge Dean to close the display. Even then, the then in-charge Dean remained adamant and refused to heed the requests / orders of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor.

The Faculty of Fine Arts is an integral part of the prestigious The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, known for its substantial contribution in placing Gujarat & Baroda on international cultural scene, and as such cannot be left solely on the whims & wishes of any one individual.

In the event of the adamant refusal of the then in-charge Dean to heed the repeated requests from the University officials and his blatant refusal to obey lawful orders of the University officials and that too in such grave matter of hurting the sentiments of decency and societal harmony, the University had no other option but to suspend the in-charge Dean, Prof. S. K. Panniker from the University services for three months with immediate effect under the rules of the University.

The university authority has constituted a committee headed by Professor Syed Maswood, Dean Faculty of Law, with clear terms of reference for investigating entire matter in detail, identify all person/s responsible for this incidence, and recommend appropriate action under rules of the University.

The Chancellor of the University, Her Excellency Dr. Mrunalini Devi Puar, has publicly condemned such exhibition depicting divine personalities in derogatory manner.

In addition to a very large number of social organizations and common people, the leading citizens including Maharaja Ranjitsingh Gaekwad, Padmashri Sitanshu Mehta, Renowned Painter Shri Gulam Mohmmed Sheikh, Professor Dhruv Mistry, renowned Sculptor, Noted Poet Madhav Ramanuj and several distinguished personalities have issued public statements condemning the exhibition of objectionable works of Art that caused deep hurt to the sentiments of Faith of a very large society.

Steps Taken to Restore Normalcy

01. The Security, particularly in the Faculty of Fine Arts, has been enhanced right from 09 May 2007. The Security personnel are ensuring that only those students and Members of the University fraternity are allowed entry inside the Faculty Campus who hold valid identity card or authentic identity document. Due care is also taken not to put genuine visitors to any inconvenience. The campus is totally peaceful.

02. The Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts, Professor Deepak Kannal is on leave and is currently in the U.S.A. on an academic assignment. He has been requested to pre-pone his return to India and is likely to resume his duties at the earliest possible.

03. Since during the absence of the regular Dean, none of the senior members of the Faculty was willing to take the charge of the Faculty, Professor G. C. Maheshwari, Dean Fculty of Management Studies has been appointed as the Officer on Special Duty in-charge of the Faculty of Fine Arts till the Dean Professor Deepak Kannal resumes his duties.

04. The results of the examinations of the Department of Museology, one of the six departments of the Faculty of Fine Arts, is declared. All the possible steps are being taken as to the conduct of the examination and the declaration of the results at the earliest possible.
05. A committee of the following members is constituted on 12 May 2007 to investigate about:
(i) the incidence that occurred in the Faculty of Fine Arts on 09 May 2007 and subsequent developments related to it, and
(ii) the role, conduct and behaviour of Professor S. K. Panikkar, the then in-charge Dean, Faculty of Fine Arts with regard to the above referred incidence and frame charges against him.

01. Professor Syed Maswood, Dean, Faculty of Law, Convener
02. Dr. Prakash Shah, (M.D.), Syndicate Member, Member
03. Shri Mukundbhai Shah, Syndicate Member Member
04. Advocate Shri Rajendra Trivedi, Senate Member Member

The Convener is authorized to co-opt any other member(s) or invite artists for consultation.
The Committee is requested to submit its report at the earliest possible.
The Terms of Reference of the Committee will be as follows:
01 To ascertain the facts and evidences about the incidence that occurred in the Faculty of Fine Arts on 09 May 2007 and subsequent developments related to it.
02 To examine the role, conduct and behaviour of Professor S. K. Panikker, In-Charge Dean, Faculty of Fine Arts with regard to the above referred incidence.
03 To identify person(s) responsible for the incidence and subsequent developments related to it, and recommend appropriate action(s) with regard to those responsible.

RULES REGARDING DISCIPLINE AND CONDUCT OF UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES


‘Chapter XLIX’ (Page No. 341 of the Handbook of the MSU) states as under:


No.2 During the hours fixed for his duties, he shall devote himself diligently to his work, AND GIVE FULL CO-OPERATION IN ALL UNIVERSITY WORK.

No. 5 HE SHALL RESPECT ALL LAWFUL ORDERS FROM HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS AND CARRY THEM OUT FAITHFULLY.

No. 6 HE SHALL SEE THAT THE UNIVERSITY PROPERTY, ARTICLES, APPARATUS, MONEY ETC. IN HIS CHARGE ARE USED WITH REASONABLE CARE, and proper precautions are taken against any possible damage to them or loss to the University.

No. 9 HE SHALL STUDY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, STATUTES, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURE SO FAR AS THEY CONCERN THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF DUTIES ATTACHED TO HIS POST, AND SEE THAT HE CONFORMS TO THEM IN HIS DAILY DUTIES.

No. 13 Unless generally or specially empowered in this behalf, he shall not communicate directly to outside persons or associations or to the press any documents or information which has come into his possession in the course of his duties or has been prepared or collected by him in the course of these duties, whether from official sources or otherwise.

No.16 THE UNIVERSITY TEACHERS SHOULD REFRAIN FROM ANY ACTIVITY WHICH TENDS TO CREATE COMMUNAL DISHARMONY.

Hindu nationalist backlash against Husain and Chandramohan - nudity in Indian art/

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA

TASTE


Nationalism and Nudes

By SALIL TRIPATHI

May 18, 2007

Near the end of James Joyce's "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young
Man," Stephen Dedalus tells the reader, "I will not serve that in
which I no longer believe, whether it call itself my home, my
fatherland, or my church: And I will try to express myself in some
mode of life or art as freely as I can and as wholly as I can, using
for my defence the only arms I allow myself to use -- silence, exile
and cunning."

For the 91-year-old Indian painter, Maqbool Fida Husain, perhaps
India's most renowned artist, these words must carry a special
meaning. In his long career he has painted scores of Hindu deities,
often without clothes. For years this offended no one. But as Hindu
nationalism grew more militant he became a target. For much of the
past decade, Hindu nationalists have destroyed his paintings,
ransacked art galleries where his work is displayed, and filed over a
thousand cases against him for offending their sensibilities.

Last week, a court ordered his property seized for failing to respond
to a summons in a case involving a nude portrayal of a woman
resembling "Mother India." His lawyers pointed out that he had not
received the summons, and a higher court restrained the lower court's
order.

Still, Mr. Husain has been effectively silenced -- few galleries in
India show his work. He lives in exile -- involuntarily, in London and
Dubai -- for fear of being attacked physically by mobs whose idea of
art criticism is to make a bonfire of his canvases.

Emboldened by their success in hounding Mr. Husain, Hindu nationalists
are now looking elsewhere for "offensive" art. On May 9, one such
group unlawfully entered the Maharaja Sayajirao University campus and
assaulted an award-winning art student named Chandramohan
Srilamantula. Like Mr. Husain, his work includes nude Hindu deities as
well as a painting depicting the crucifix. So for good measure the
Hindu activists brought along a few Christians as well. They roughed
him up, had him arrested by the local police, and the following day a
judge sent him to the city's central jail.

While his dean vigorously supported Mr. Chandramohan, the university's
administrators, in an act of stunning cowardice, refused to post bail
for the student or offer legal help, and instead asked him to
apologize. Not only was this a blow to free expression and academic
freedom; on the face of it, the arrest was illegal. Leading artists
and writers from around India protested the arrest. Mr. Chandramohan
was released on bail on Monday, on condition that he notify the police
if he planned to leave the state or the country while the case was
pending.

Hindu nationalists' campaign against Mr. Husain has been particularly
sharp because he is, as his name suggests, a Muslim, and relations
between the two communities have always been sensitive. Yes, Mr.
Husain has painted many Hindu deities -- the monkey-god Hanuman; the
elephant-headed god Ganesha; Rama's consort, Sita; the goddess of
learning, Saraswati -- in the nude. Yet in doing so, Mr. Husain is
hardly being a pioneer: For millennia, Hindu divinities have appeared
without clothes in art.

The whole point of such art is to look beyond the body. Indeed,
another Hindu god, Shiva, who often wore little more than an animal's
skin as a loincloth, calls himself nirakara, or formless. So when Mr.
Husain depicts a Hindu deity in the nude, he is following an Indian
tradition, and not insulting or defying it. Indeed, his art and
freedom of expression was once a shining example of India's thriving
secular democracy.

Sadly, however, since the late 1980s, Hindu nationalists have
convinced many Hindus that they are the victims of reverse
discrimination. Muslims are the recipients, they argue, of undeserving
state-led appeasement.

To be sure, the state has been inept. In 1986, the Indian parliament
caved in to Muslim protests and overturned a Supreme Court verdict
which granted Muslim women the right to sue their husbands for
alimony. Then in 1992, the state failed to protect a disputed
16th-century mosque in Ayodhya, which Hindu activists destroyed,
claiming that one of their gods, Rama, was born at that precise spot.
Hundreds died in the riots that followed.

In such a climate, it might seem naïve or foolhardy for Messrs. Husain
or Chandramohan to paint Hindu deities in the nude. But artists don't
follow societal whims and fashions; they respond to inspirations and
emotions. They follow their calling and challenge conventional wisdom,
even if it shocks the viewers.

Vulgarity lies in the eye of the beholder. But in Indian art, nudity
has long connoted openness. Mr. Husain's paintings force viewers to
rethink their relationship with Hindu myths -- they aren't meant to
titillate. His nudes delineate the body in sharp lines, elevating it
to an abstract realm, suggesting the formlessness of divinity.

Artists and scholars understand those ideas, which are too complex for
those who would burn galleries. Yet they want equal treatment and
equal time. So if Muslims can get Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic
Verses" or the Danish cartoons banned, they want Mr. Husain's -- and
now Mr. Chandramohan's -- freedom restricted.

At last, it seems, Hindus have secured the parity they believe they've
been denied. They have their own Taliban.

Mr. Tripathi is a writer based in London.

Online Petition to the Governor of Gujrat

The petition is available at : http://www.petitiononline.com/MSUAUTO/


To
The Governor of Gujarat
Raj Bhavan, Sector-20,
Gandhinagar - 382020
Gujarat, India.

Sir,

We write to you in your capacity as the Visitor to the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda. We strongly condemn the recent actions of the group of people with affiliations to Hindu supremacist groups, who barged into the Fine Arts campus of M.S. University, disrupted the examination and abused and threatened students and faculty members. Such attempts to stifle by force the rights to free speech and expression of individuals, and to impose on society in general the narrow perceptions of certain sections regarding what is permissible and what is not, constitute a serious threat to democratic institutions and practices.

The response of the University authorities to these events has, if anything, been even more disturbing than the actions of these self-appointed guardians of �morality�. Far from acting to protect the academic interests and the notions of autonomy and academic freedom which are so central to the very concept of a university, the University authorities have actually acted in concert with the hooligans who are threatening the functioning of the university. Where they should have initiated prompt legal action against the intruders and against the police who illegally entered the campus and arrested a student, and where they were duty-bound to make every effort to secure the immediate release of the student (who was released on bail after 5 days in custody), the University authorities chose to look the other way. Most shocking of all is the fact that the Vice-Chancellor subsequently advised the victims of the attack - students and faculty of the Fine Arts Faculty � to apologise for the events. Not content with this, the University administration further took the unprecedented step of suspending Dr. Shivaji Panikkar, the Dean of the Fine Arts Faculty, and barring his entry to the Fine Arts campus.

We wish to express our complete outrage at the actions of the Vice Chancellor and administration of the University. We would like to suggest that if the highest officials of the M.S. University administration are so out of sympathy with basic ideas, accepted the world over, of how a university should function, then they should relinquish any administrative functions in an academic institution.

As you are aware, the Fine Arts Faculty of M.S. University has enjoyed (and continues to enjoy) the reputation of being India�s leading Fine Arts school, which has had well-known artists on its faculty and has been the nucleus for a vibrant and internationally renowned artists' community. In order to remedy the situation and reassert the stature of the Fine Arts Faculty and the University as respectable centres of academic excellence that abide by generally accepted norms of functioning of a university, we demand that the following steps be urgently implemented:

1. Dismissal of the untenable and phony police case against the student, Mr. Chandra Mohan

2. Immediate revoking of the suspension order against Dr. Shivaji Panikkar, Dean of the Faculty of Fine Arts

3. Initiation of legal action against the intruders on the University campus, including the police who improperly arrested Mr. Chandra Mohan in complete violation of D. K. Basu guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India

4. Apology by the Vice-Chancellor of M.S. University to the academic community of the University

We sincerely hope that even at this late stage you will take action to undo some of the damage that is being inflicted on a prestigious institution.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Undersigned

Online Petition to SAHMAT

Dear All,
Please consider signing the following petition against the recent outrage at MS University Baroda.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ms150507/petition.html