Maqbool Fida Hussain comes through as a sexually perverse person. To paint nudity is an old tradition. To portray sex play may be pornographic, but it is not unnatural and not considered perverse. But to depict copulation between an animal and a woman is revolting to the normal person.
An individual suffering from a mental disease is ultimately his personal concern. But when the fallout of his perversity touches persons unknown to him, it is slanderous. When the pornography or the perversity embroils deities, it is sacrilegious.
Prima facie, Hussain has insulted the Hindu ethos in general and believing Hindus in particular. Can he be forgiven for painting Durga and Saraswati naked? And Sita masturbating on the long tail of hanuman; in another painting she is shown sitting naked on the thigh of Ravana. Imagine a bull copulating with Parvati and Shankar watching the act on Shivratri. Or Durga in union with her lion! The painting of Krishna with his flute sitting on a cow but with no feet and no hands. How can so many instances be by inadvertence?
The most misleading Hindu however was the 20th century anti-Hindu Hindu. The beginning of this perversion goes back to the launching of the Khilafat movement in 1920. Its prima facie objective was to pressurize the Government of Great Britain into retaining the Sultan of Turkey on his throne. This was the only way to save the institution of the Caliph, or the representative of Prophet Muhammad as the spiritual cum temporal head of the world's Sunni Islam. Strangely enough, it was Gandhi who became the head of this movement. His vicarious motive was to placate the Muslims of India in order to get them on his side against the British empire. The great man must have, no doubt, realized that his action was against Indian nationalism. For the simple reason, that the Caliph represented pan-Islamism which was essentially a supranationalist institution.
Gandhi has never called the Muslims to account even when they have been guilty of gross crimes against Hindus.
It is a notorious fact that many prominent Hindus who had offended the religious susceptibilities of the Muslims either by their writings or by their part in the Sudhi movement have been murdered by some fanatic Musalmans…The leading Moslems never condemned these criminals. On the contrary, they were hailed as religious martyrs…This attitude of the Moslems is quite understandable. What is not understandable is the attitude of Gandhi.
Gandhi's callousness to the suffering in Malabar rose to a new height when he wrote in Young India of 29 September 1921.
" We have forgotten the divine out of dying for our faiths without retaliation..The Hindus must have the courage and the faith to feel that they can protect their religion in spite of such fanatical eruptions."
He warned the government against excessive repression of the Moplahs. The ending of the revolt was a matter not only of urgency but of simple humanity: 'Be the Moplahs be ever so bad, they deserve to be treated as human beings.'
It has been estimated that in the course of the rebellion, no less than 600 Hindus were killed and 2500 Hindus forcibly converted to Islam."
On 10th September 1924, several hundred Hindus were butchered by the Muslims in rioting which had begun the previous day. Gandhi along with Maulana Shaukat Ali went to Rawalpindi on the 4th of February 1925 to meet the Hindu refugees and the Mussalmans of Kohat.
Instead of finding these happenings to be heartrending, Gandhi commented (Collected Works, 1925):
I fear the truth is bitter than is put here if I am to credit the Hindu version. I must say in fairness to the Mussalman friend that he did not regard these acts as conversion at all. Taking it at its lowest, the performance is humiliating alike for the Mussalmans and the Hindus. It would have redounded to the credit of the Mussalmans concerned, if they had steeled the hearts of the unmanly Hindus and offered them protection in spite of their remaining Hindus and retaining the symbols of Hinduism. The Hindus would have gone down to posterity as martyrs and heroes of whom mankind, let alone Hindus, would have been proud if they had preferred death to denying their faith, albeit outwardly, in order to live.
I can only suggest solutions of questions in terms of swaraj. I would therefore sacrifice present individual gain for future national gain. Even if Mussalmans refuse to make approaches and even if the Hindus of Kohat may have to lose their all, I should still say that they must not think of returning to Kohat till there is complete reconciliation between them and the Mussalmans, and until they feel that they are able to live in peace with the latter without the protection of the British bayonet. But I know that this is a counsel of perfection and not likely to be followed by the Hindus. Nevertheless, I can tender no other advice. For me it is the only practical advice I can give. And if they cannot appreciate it, they must follow their own inclination. They are the best judges of their own capacity. They were in Kohat not as nationalists. They want to return not as nationalists but for the purpose of regaining their possessions.
I want to ask Muslim friends: Does their religion teach them to abduct anyone's wife and make her a Muslim? It is unbearable for me if any woman living in the Frontier province is forcibly violated. If it is argued that she has embraced Islam, I am not prepared to believe it. That is why I want to tell you that if you hold your religion dear, then do not go back as long as Muslims there do not say," Come back with honour"; you should not go till then.
To Gandhi, the Muslims of Kohat were friends while the Hindus, ho comprised a miniscule proportion of the area's population, were cowards!