Who named controversial painting ‘Bharatmata’? Not MF Husain

According to a transfer petition filed by the 90-year-old artist in April, the title Bharatmata was not given by him. Nor was the work ever publicly displayed, or put up for public sale. The name of the painting, he said in the petition, was given without his knowledge.

The title name had provoked widespread protest even after auction organiser, Chennai-based Apparao Galleries, withdrew it from the bidding process held between February 6 and 8 in New Delhi.

Husain’s lawyer Akhil Sibal said the work, which was not titled, was sold to a private collector in 2004. “The artist was not in any way involved with the auction,” he said.

In April, Husain sought transfer of the various private complaint cases filed against him in different cities to Delhi. While the state has not so far prosecuted Husain, only private criminal complaints have been filed in cities such as Bhopal, Indore, Rajkot, Pandharpur (Maharashtra), Mumbai and Delhi.

In April this year, the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings in the complaint case filed in Rajkot and Bhopal. In the complaint case filed in Indore, the court stayed execution of bailable arrest issued by the judicial magistrate. It has also stayed proceedings in a criminal complaint in Pandharpur.

On 24 July, the Mumbai court disposed of a writ petition against a prayer of a complainant, who asked the court to direct the police to register a case against the artist under Section 153 A and 298 A of the Indian Penal Code. The order in the Delhi case is pending.

Some of these complainants said they were perturbed by looking at picture that appeared in a magazine advertisement. Others said they saw the painting while surfing the Net. But if Husain did not, who named the painting? According to Sharon Apparao, owner of Apparao Galleries, she “cannot remember”. “There were a lot of people there when we named it. I don’t remember who named the painting Bharatmata,” she said over telephone.

New Delhi-based Arun Vadehra substantiates what Husain stated, but denied knowledge of how the painting got its name. “Like many artists, Husain did not title many of his works. He did not name this painting (Bharatmata) either,” he said, adding that most of the time paintings were titled for archiving purposes. Husain’s works first came under public attack in 1996, after an article was published in Vichar Mimansa, a Bhopal-based magazine.

Titled Husain: Artist or Butcher?, the article had sketches of several Indian deities by the artist, prompting a series of private criminal complaints to be filed in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar and Gujarat.

These cases were transferred to New Delhi’s Patiala court in February 2000 by a Supreme Court order. After four years, in April 2004, the Delhi High Court quashed these complaints.

But during this second round of controversy, the artist has not been in India. In the past seven months, he has been living in the UK, Switzerland, Dubai and Australia. “Husain has never stayed away from India for so long, maximum for a month,” said a source. Before he left the country, Husain clarified his position publicly. In a statement on February 7, he said, “Not that I love art less but I love humanity more. Whatever I’ve painted in my life, I’ve done with full conviction and full respect. In the process, if someone’s feelings are hurt, I apologise.”