Hindutva grouse returns to haunt an MF Husain auction in Mumbai. Latest row & past controversies
There are neither any new grouses nor any fresh grounds for the outfit to call for the scrapping of the auction. The HJS has claimed that Husain previously hurt Hindu sentiments, and the auction would be akin to a 'glorification of his criminal deeds'.
Mumbai: The late Indian modernist painter, M.F. Husain, has once again riled up Hindutva activists ahead of a rare auction of his 25 paintings Thursday at Hamilton House, Mumbai. The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) has called for the scrapping of the auction.
ThePrint reached out to Hindu Janajagruti Samiti over a call, but the member who picked up the call refused to comment. Hamilton House, or Pundole Art Gallery was also contacted via calls and email for its comments. Once a response comes, the report will be updated.
The HJS threats are nothing new. The illustrious art career of Husain, who died in 2011 in London at 95 years of age after a self-imposed exile, was marked with protests, police complaints, and legal tussles with Hindutva outfits back home.
Controversies over Husain's paintings
Maqbool Fida Husain, known as Picasso of India, was a revered artist who, at the same time, was a child of controversies. He produced nearly 60,000 works of art in his 95 years of life, covering subjects ranging from the Ramayana and Mahabharata to the British colonisation and motifs of urban and rural India.
However, some of his works, especially in the 90s, landed him in the crosshairs of the saffron brigade and political outfits. In 1996, he drew the goddess of knowledge, Saraswati, nude. Hindutva outfits, such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, strongly criticised it. In the late 1990s, Bajrang Dal activists attacked his exhibition in Ahmedabad, destroying some of his paintings.
Enraged again in 1998 by a painting depicting a nude Sita, sitting on the tail of Hanuman, Bajrang Dal activists attacked his home in South Mumbai. At the time, Husain had to apologise for things to calm down.
'We should find a way once and for all to establish what is art and what is obscenity. It is not an attack on me but on culture and the freedom of expression,' M.F. Husain told the media back then.
His representations of Hindu gods and goddesses such as Shiva and Durga—allegedly controversial—led to legal actions and threats in the early 2000s. After years, nearly a decade later, he again landed in a controversy for painting 'Bharat Mata' nude. He had drawn a nude woman in red, in the shape of India.
At the time, the backlash was severe, with multiple cases filed against him in several states under sections 153A, 295A, and 292 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain to promoting enmity between communities, insulting religious sentiments, and participating in or promoting businesses selling obscene objects, respectively.
The Bal Thackeray-led Shiv Sena attacked his exhibition titled India in the Era of Mughals in Delhi in 2007, vandalising two of his paintings. Though Husain then apologised for the portrayal, he left the country in 2006 and sought asylum in Doha. He spent his last years between Doha, Dubai, and London.
In 2008, the Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal cases against him. In 2011, the Supreme Court consolidated all the cases in the lower courts. Then, it passed a judgment, extending protection to his art under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression.
Also Read: Mumbra train tragedy: Call for automated doors, more trains after at least 4 dead due to overcrowding
The auction
Back in 2004, Swarup Shrivastava, a Mumbai-based art collector and chairman of Swarup Group of Industries, bought 25 paintings from Husain for a deal. Each painting cost Rs one crore each. The deal was to commission 100 paintings for Rs 100 crore.
However, in 2006, the Central Bureau of Investigation initiated a probe against the Swarup Group and Srivastava for allegedly misappropriating Rs 150 crore from Rs 236 crore taken in loans from the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED).
A tribunal in December 2008 permitted NAFED to secure the Husain paintings among assets of Rs 100 crore. Finally, the case reached the Bombay High Court, which asked for a valuation of the paintings from the Pundole Art Gallery.
Last year, in May, Pundole submitted that the valuation was Rs 25 crore for 25 paintings. Subsequently, the Bombay HC, in a February 2025 order, allowed the sheriff of Mumbai to auction 25 paintings to recover the dues from Shrivastava.
The auction, titled 'M.F. Husain: An artist's vision of the XX century', includes 25 canvases painted as a part of the OPCE, Our Planet Called Earth, series by Husain.
The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti has submitted a memorandum to the government officials to raise objections. The memorandum stated, 'M.F. Husain, during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, painted a nude and disrespectful image of Bharat Mata titled 'Rape of Mother India', which is a severe act of sedition. In other paintings, he portrayed Bharat Mata nude with names of Indian cities written on her body.'
'Holding an auction of these 25 paintings is tantamount to indirectly supporting his previous anti-national and anti-social acts. Glorifying such individuals under the guise of 'artistic freedom' is unacceptable. The Patiala House Court in Delhi has recently ordered the seizure of Husain's controversial paintings, and an investigation is underway,' the HJS added in its memorandum.
In the past, there had been cancellations of his exhibitions in India and revocations of awards in his name, the memorandum further stated.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Solo or together? The big question for Maharashtra alliances this BMC poll season
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
13 minutes ago
- India Today
Asaduddin Owaisi calls Pahalgam attack painful, vows to boycott India-Pak match
AIMIM Chief and veteran Lok Sabha MP Asaduddin Owaisi, in an exclusive podcast with India Today, said he will not watch the upcoming India vs Pakistan cricket match in Dubai as part of the Asia Cup.'I am surprised and shocked that we are playing a cricket match with Pakistan in Dubai. I will not watch it,' Owaisi said. 'How can you jump and play cricket when the Prime Minister himself has said many times that water and blood cannot flow together, and that talks and terrorism cannot go together?'advertisementCalling cricket in India 'an obsession' that brings everything to a standstill, Owaisi said the recent Pahalgam terror attack, where people were shot in front of their families, had deeply pained him. 'The incident was horrific. It is painful that someone can be shot in front of their wives and children. To me, it makes no sense to play a cricket match with Pakistan when we have taken such stringent measures,' he said. When asked why India is playing under such circumstances, he said the answer lies with the BCCI and the government, which permitted the to Home Minister Amit Shah's statement that there is 'nothing called Hindu terror,' Owaisi asked, 'Who killed Mahatma Gandhi? Who killed Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi? Who killed the Sikhs in the streets of Delhi? Who is killing police personnel in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Andhra Pradesh?'"Terrorism has become a new religion and these terrorists do all the acts in the name of religion," he said. "Amit Shah may have forgotten who killed Mahatma Gandhi. Nathuram Godse was the first terrorist of independent India," he GOVERNMENT IN PARLIAMENT FOR ALLOWING CRICKET MATCH In a fiery speech in Parliament earlier during the ongoing Monsoon Session, Owaisi questioned the decision to play cricket with Pakistan while trade and water treaties remain suspended. 'Does your conscience permit playing a cricket match with Pakistan? You've cut off trade ties, shut down airspace but you're still ready to play cricket?' he further demanded accountability for the security lapse in Pahalgam, questioning how terrorists could enter and kill civilians despite a heavy military presence. He also criticised the government's Kashmir policy, claiming deterrence had failed despite the abrogation of Article 370.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
13 minutes ago
- India Today
Modi's farmer firewall: The subtext of India's trade standoff with US
When Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood on stage at the National Conference on Agriculture in New Delhi on August 7, the political atmosphere was already thick with tension. Only a day earlier, US president Donald Trump had stunned observers by announcing a fresh 25 per cent tariff on a range of Indian exports—pharmaceuticals, auto components, steel—hours after US representative Ricky Gill left the capital following the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) meeting. It was an unmistakable escalation in a relationship that has seen friction bubble beneath the surface for in his response, didn't mince words. 'India will never compromise on the wellbeing of its farmers, dairy workers and fishermen,' he declared, adding pointedly, 'Even if I have to pay a personal price, I'm ready for it.' For domestic audiences, it was a reaffirmation of a longstanding nationalist plank. For Washington, it was a warning shot—one that underscored just how far apart the two democracies remain on a comprehensive trade agreement, especially on Modi government has long positioned rural India at the heart of its political and economic strategy. This isn't just about votes—it's about livelihoods, cultural values and the perceived threat of foreign encroachment on food sovereignty. And no sector illustrates this divergence with the US more acutely than over a decade, US trade negotiators have pushed for deeper market access into India's massive but highly protected farm economy. The most contentious demands have revolved around dairy, poultry and genetically modified (GM) crops. American agribusiness giants see India—a country of over 1.4 billion people—as a high-potential growth market for surplus US farm produce. But India has resisted what it sees as a backdoor entry for products that violate religious norms and food safety standards or could destabilise millions of small farmers. The dairy dispute is a classic example. India mandates that any imported dairy must come from cattle not fed bovine-derived blood meal—a restriction rooted in Hindu dietary beliefs. US dairy producers view this as an unscientific non-tariff barrier. Likewise, India maintains high tariffs on poultry imports, particularly frozen chicken legs—a commodity where the US is globally competitive. Though India lost a WTO (World Trade Organization) dispute over its earlier ban on US poultry (citing avian flu risks) in 2015, its domestic poultry industry and small-scale producers continue to oppose any significant market opening, fearing a flood of cheap imports that could devastate local GM crops, the fault lines are even deeper. India has approved GM cotton but consistently resisted introducing GM food crops into the consumer market, citing bio-safety and farmer dependence on proprietary seed technology. US-based lobby groups had been pushing India to open up for GM variants of mustard, brinjal, rice, etc. Incidentally, most of these are indigenous crops and face resistance from farmer lobbies in India. Trade lobbyists also argue that the acceptance of GM variants in human consumption crops would mean shutting the doors of importers in matter is tangled in legal complexities, with Supreme Court judges Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Sanjay Karol, in July last year, pronouncing a split verdict on the validity of the Centre's 2022 decision granting conditional approval for environmental release of GM mustard crops. The matter is now listed to be heard by a bigger US is one of the world's largest GM crop exporters and sees India's caution as a form of protectionism. Washington has demanded streamlined regulatory approval processes and wider acceptance of agricultural biotechnology—demands that remain political landmines in India's polarised discourse around food, science and sovereignty. 'The resistance to GM crops is linked to the food security of the country, retaining the rights and control of the crop for the farmers. This should not be lost at any cost,' says Ashwani Mahajan, national co-convenor, Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), an RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) affiliate working in the economic groups such as the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, along with Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, anchored by SJM, have been vehemently opposing the opening up of the farm sector, including for GM crops. Layered onto these specific disputes are broader philosophical differences on the nature of farm support US frequently challenges India's minimum support price (MSP) mechanism—particularly its generous procurement and stockholding policies—as trade-distorting under WTO norms. But for India, the MSP regime is a non-negotiable pillar of its food security architecture. It guarantees a floor price to farmers and ensures buffer stocks for the government's massive food distribution schemes, which benefit hundreds of millions of low-income the BTA (bilateral trade agreement) discussions, India's red lines on agriculture were being pushed in return for no significant concessions by the US,' says Pradeep Mehta, founder secretary general of CUTS, a leading think-tank focused on trade negotiations. 'It is all 'take' and no 'give'—and that is not the template for a balanced negotiation.'After the massive farmers' protests of 2020-21, which forced the Narendra Modi government to repeal three controversial farm laws, any move seen as undermining MSPs would be political suicide. As Modi himself hinted in his speech, the 'personal price' of protecting farmers is one he is prepared to pay—a statement that may resonate with rural voters but effectively freezes any room for agricultural concessions in Indo-US trade the Trump administration, this hard line is frustrating. His return to office has revived the 'America First' playbook, and India's tight controls on agri-trade are once again being framed as 'unfair'. Trump views trade not as a long-term strategic alignment but as a scoreboard of economic wins and losses. His doctrine of 'reciprocity' demands that if American goods face high tariffs or non-tariff barriers, equivalent measures should be imposed in return. Under this rubric, India's continued duties on US wine, almonds, apples and processed foods are now back under the Trump administration has already started reviewing India's access to the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)—a duty-free benefits programme India lost during Trump's earlier term. India has quietly lobbied for its reinstatement, arguing that its removal hurt small and medium exporters. But Trump's current team appears even more combative, signalling that no such restoration will come unless India makes concrete concessions on agricultural market access, digital trade and tariff impasse is not limited to bilateral channels. The divide also plays out at the multilateral level, especially at the WTO, where India often leads the Global South resistance to reforms pushed by the US and EU. The most prominent of these disagreements is over food subsidies. The US wants tighter rules, more transparency, and stricter caps on what it sees as trade-distorting backed by countries like Indonesia and South Africa, argues that food security concerns in developing nations must take precedence. Modi's government, in particular, has projected India as a champion of Global South concerns—something that puts it on a collision course with US trade orthodoxy.'I am absolutely confident that PM Modi will not compromise on issues related to farmers, dairy and agriculture,' says Suresh Prabhu, former Union commerce minister. 'As commerce and industry minister in the first Modi government, taking care of these was our guiding principle while dealing with all countries, WTO and trade negotiations. We deployed several tools to protect these critical, vital national interests.'During Prabhu's time, New Delhi had resisted US pressure on reaching the deal at WTO's controversial Agreement on Agriculture, which would have pushed India to phase out the MSP mechanism and limit buffer stocks. India had used this stalemate to resist other conversations, such as building rules of e-commerce, thus further frustrating Washington. It all added to the friction, which has now come to a head. Trump's tariff escalation announcement is widely viewed in New Delhi as a retaliatory strike—not just against the stalemate in trade talks but also against India's growing strategic independence. Ironically, this escalation came just after India had hosted the IMEC convening, which included representatives from the US, EU, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. For India, IMEC is perhaps its most ambitious diplomatic balancing act yet—linking the country to western infrastructure partnerships while maintaining its non-aligned voice in BRICS and the Global South. That balancing act now appears under unpredictability only sharpens this tension. While Modi has built a working relationship with multiple US presidents—from Barack Obama to Joe Biden—Trump's transactional style and tendency to announce major policy moves via press statements or social media make quiet diplomacy increasingly difficult. Indian negotiators are wary of investing political capital in deals that could be upended result is a chilling effect. Even as India and the US continue to engage in high-level dialogues on defence, semiconductors, AI and space collaboration, the trade portfolio remains conspicuously frozen. While the US commerce secretary and India's trade minister have reiterated their commitment to resolving differences, there is no roadmap or timeline for a free trade agreement (FTA)—a deal once seen as the crown jewel of Indo-US ties.'There is first a need to build domestic consensus on agricultural reforms and create buy-in at home. Domestic ownership of agri reforms needs to be the foundation for any potential agricultural trade liberalisation. No other path is politically viable,' recommends the Modi government, this freeze may be a calculated choice. Instead of conceding to Washington, India is looking elsewhere. Trade agreements with the EU and Australia have moved forward, and bilateral investments with the UAE and Saudi Arabia are on the rise. India is also spearheading alternative payment systems, like Unified Payments Interface (UPI) linkages and rupee-dirham trade, to insulate itself from currency weaponisation and future economic the bigger message lies in Modi's August 7 speech. It was not just about agricultural policy. It was a declaration that India will chart its economic future on its own terms—even if that means losing trade benefits or enduring tariff pressure. The personal tone he adopted—acknowledging the political cost—signals that India's strategic autonomy is no longer a theoretical concept. It is the guiding principle of its economic US may still be India's most important partner in defence and technology, but on trade, the fault lines are growing too visible to ignore. Whether those lines can be bridged through backchannel diplomacy or will become permanent fractures will define the next phase of this complex, high-stakes relationship. For now, the signal from New Delhi is clear: India's farmers, and the politics they anchor, will not be sacrificed at the altar of a fast-tracked trade to India Today Magazine- EndsTune InMust Watch
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Amid tariff fury, India backs Trump-Putin's planned talks in Alaska
NEW DELHI: Faced with US president Trump's fury over energy imports from Russia, India welcomed the announcement about his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Aug 15, saying it stood ready to back these efforts to end the conflict. Recalling PM Narendra Modi's message to Putin earlier that "this is not an era of war", MEA said in a statement that the meeting holds the promise of bringing to an end the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and opening up the prospects for peace. While the Trump-Putin meeting suggests fresh momentum in US President's efforts to broker peace, whether he can get Ukraine to surrender any territory remains debatable. Trump has said that "there will be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both". Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was quick to reject any ceding of land by his country. For India though, in the present circumstances, the three sides agreeing to a peace deal is the best thing that could happen as it would also turn Trump's secondary sanctions against India groundless. Indian ambassador to the US, Vinay Kwatra, met Senator Lindsey Graham, a lead votary of sanctions against countries doing business with Moscow, and explained to him the Indian perspective on energy security, including increasing energy trade with the US. "India welcomes the understanding reached between the US and the Russian Federation for a meeting in Alaska on 15th Aug 2025," said MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, adding that India endorses the upcoming summit meeting and stands ready to support these efforts. Modi had spoken to Putin Friday about deepening ties with Russia and underlined India's "unwavering" support for resolving the conflict through diplomatic and political means.
