Husain: The Timeless Modernist exhibition at DAGPhoto by Animikh ChakrabartyHusain: The Timeless Modernist exhibition at DAGPhoto by Animikh Chakrabarty “Art is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents1xcassino, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art”.
– Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, quoting Pablo Picasso in the 2008 case M.F. Husain v. Raj Kumar Pandey
In October 2024, DAG (formerly Delhi Art Gallery) opened Husain: The Timeless Modernist, an exhibition celebrating the artistic legacy of one of India’s most recognizable modern artists, Maqbool Fida Husain. Among the works displayed were paintings depicting Hindu gods alongside nude female figures— imagery that, decades after Husain first painted it, remains as contentious as ever.
“Is it acceptable to display such paintings in an exhibition under the guise of art?”Supreme Court advocate Amita Sachdeva asked on X on Dec. 13, 2024, after visiting the exhibition.
A formal complaint followed, and in late January, a Delhi court ordered the seizure of two paintings from DAG’s exhibition, deeming them “offensive.” While an investigation was launched, no cognisable offense was found. DAG ultimately retained the exhibition but, according to Sachdeva, removed the contested paintings.
This moment echoes the battles that defined Husain’s career. As a leading figure in India’s progressive art movement, Husain, along with artists like F.N. Souza and S.H. Raza, sought new ways to capture the evolving landscape of the newly independent republic. In the 1950s Husain looked to redefine Indian visual expression, moving away from colonial-era academic portraiture toward bold forms, vibrant colors, and mythological themes.
He looked to the West, drawing inspiration from art movements like Cubism, while also engaging with indigenous traditions, miniature painting, the sculptures of Khajuraho, and the epics of the Ramayana.
By virtue of his faith, Husain alongside Raza, faced heightened scrutiny, particularly when engaging with Hindu iconography. At a time when faith-based divides were intensifying, his work occupied a precarious space —extraordinary to some and uncomfortable to many.
In 2006, a series of lawsuits were filed against Husain over his painting Bharat Mata, a nude depiction of Mother India. Muslim groups, too, condemned him for incorporating Quranic verses into a song in his film Meenaxi.
Though the courts upheld his right to artistic freedom, the threats did not cease. By 2006,66jogo Jogos de Cassino Online no Brasil sustained public outrage and escalating violence forced him into exile. In 2010, he accepted Qatari citizenship, effectively renouncing his Indian nationality in the final years of his life.
funkpgToday, the DAG case amplifies how these censorship dynamics are still present and evolving. While the Indian constitution (Article 19 1a) sets a precedent protecting artistic expression, suppression extends beyond legal parameters. Artists, galleries, and cultural institutions are increasingly self-censoring — anticipating controversy before it arises. The result is a subtle but pervasive constraint on creative discourse. Social media has accelerated this dynamic with digital vigilantes like Sachdeva mobilising outrage and pushing for legal action.
During the 16th over of the India innings, Rishabh Pant and Yashasvi Jaiswal stole a single after a misdirected throw hit the Indian wicket-keeper batter at the non-striker's end and was deflected to mid-on. Pant's Bangladesh counterpart Litton Das was not very pleased with the run and seemed to have expressed his displeasure to the Indian when he completed the run and reached the striker's end.
The Conduct Commission, which was set up by Cricket Australia, found out that the Sri Lankan had a "serious breach" of clause 2.23 of the CA's Code of Conduct, which concerns conduct "contrary to the spirit of cricket, is unbecoming of a representative or official, is or could be harmful to the interests of cricket, or does or could bring the game of cricket into disrepute".
The decision to self-censor— a gallery not displaying a work, an artist avoiding provocative themes, or in Husain’s case, removing oneself entirely from the site of contention—is a consequence of this public surveillance.
Artists, historically have fought to take up space and challenge power, their censorship revealing important ideas of social values, hierarchies, and structures of the period.
“I find that the position of art is to express an understanding of the world around it. In Indian art spaces, artists play the role of record keepers whenever any kind of censorship, preemptive or otherwise, takes place,” said independent curator and arts educator Shaleen Wadhwana.
As we collectively experience heightened surveillance through social media, opportunities for backlash and outrage have expanded across space, time, and cultures.
Meanwhile, the commercialisation of the arts has led to an increasing preference for politically safe, marketable work. In this art space, artists are discouraged from pushing boundaries and challenging authority, while audiences become more inclined to reject those who disrupt the status quo.
This places a precarious task on curators, gallerists, and artists who strive to break out from this social panopticon but still take up space within the commercial art world.
“This balance between artistic freedom and public sensitivities is tough to find and even tougher to sustain. Hence, curators and gallerists should1xcassino, and do, champion the artists and exhibitions that speak truth to power in society," says Wadhwana.