Shiv Shakti

The controversial painter MF Hussain would no longer be an Indian citizen. It has been confirmed by his son Owais Hussain who reportedly said, "Since Indian laws don't allow dual citizenship, accepting this (Qatar nationality) offer would automatically mean giving up Indian nationality". What he has not said is that Qatari law also does not recognize dual nationality and anyone accepting its citizenship automatically ceases to be the citizen of any other country. MF Hussain having full knowledge of both the Qatari and Indian laws has accepted Qatar's offer to confer its nationality on him. In a way Hussain has himself chosen to give up his Indian nationality in favour of a most ‘coveted' Arabian citizenship which has been described as ‘rare honour' by the Hindu newspaper which broke the news. MF Hussain feels himself honoured as he wrote, "I, the Indian origin painter M.F. Hussain at 95, have been honoured by Qatar nationality". The phrase ‘Indian origin painter' which he used to describe himself cannot be missed as it underlines the fact that when this ‘honour' was conferred on him, he had himself chosen not to describe himself as an Indian citizen but as an ‘Indian origin painter'. Some of his apologists in India are trying to create wave of sympathy for him.

N Ram, the editor-in-chief of the Hindu, is right in claiming that Qatar nationality is ‘something that is very rarely given'. As per its constitution Qatar is an independent sovereign Arab emirate governed under a system of monarchy. Its official religion is Islam and Sharia law is the main source of its legislations. Though a sizeable number of non-Muslim population is present in the country, all Qatari citizens are either Sunni or Shia Muslims, except for at least one Christian, a few Bahais, and their respective families who have been granted citizenship. Out of the population of 1,448,446 [May 2008 estimates] only 15% are estimated to be citizens of the country and rest are denied the rights of citizenship. It rarely grants citizenship status to a non-Muslim. As Hussain is currently engaged in a lucrative project on Arab civilization by Qatar's powerful first lady Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al Missned, wife of the emirate's ruler, Shaikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, his close association with the ruling family and by virtue of him being a Muslim might have earned him the nationality. The nationality law of Qatar is not only extremely discriminatory but exclusively meant of a select section of the society mainly Arabs and Muslims. So the argument that he never applied for Qatar nationality has a few takers.

Hussain's acceptance of Qatar nationality has been blamed on India - its government, society, legal system and mainly the Hindu groups who raised their objections to some of his paintings. It has been repeatedly stressed by his apologists that Hussain was forced into exile for the fear of facing the cases pending against him. The argument is that even if anyone was hurt by his paintings, he had no right to approach the courts under the law of the land. As seeking a legal solution to his objectionable paintings was neither ‘secular' nor ‘democratic'. Such actions were said to be against the ‘secular-composite' fabric of India. MF Hussain as a painter of international repute had every right to paint whatever he liked and portray anything in whichever manner he preferred. As an Indian ‘Picasso' he was not bound by the law of the land nor have the courts had any jurisdiction over him as Indian citizen. Since cases were filed against his paintings and it was highly denigrating for a great painter like him to face the courts, he chose to slip out of India into a self-imposed exile. Although all are equal before the eyes of law, but still in India there are some who are more equal than others.

read in detail: http://voi.org/20100301375/28feb2010/shivshakti/column-shivshakti/m...