Art & Vandalism
Suneet Chopra
Those who have read about Alexander reducing the city of Persepolis to ashes after a drunken binge or the same fate being thrust on Troy by the Greeks, or the burning of Lanka by Hanuman or the recent events from 2002, leading to the destruction of the Babri Masjid by the BJP over a believed Ram Janmabhumi under it, or the destruction of those enormous images of Buddha in Bamian in Afghanistan by the Taliban that followed it, would realize that the violence of the destroyer is something more than just a pathological phenomenon and must be analysed in all its aspects, including political.
First and foremost, it is something grossly illogical and inhuman. A work of art, a beautiful building or even whole cities as in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed by the USA only to test and demonstrate the destruction caused by newly invented nuclear bombs, are objects that in themselves carry no basis for the wanton destruction they unleashed. Art works and architecture do not move, are often beautiful to look at or even useful like the dams and canals of Babylon that were destroyed by invading armies of marauders.
This type of destruction is no different from cultural genocide. It is equally damaging to the destroyer as to those it tries to wipe out. This is even more senseless and ineffective as one can rebuild a destroyed monument as we have seen in Germany, Russia and even in Japan, where the reconstruction of the cities destroyed by bombing has even improved on their impact as is evident in Hiroshima today.
It is then a futile practice that defeats itself and its perpetrators like Mussolini, Hitler and the fascist armies they unleashed in World War II as they destroyed themselves and their countries in this process in the end. The US forces also lost the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, despite the unprecedented destruction they let loose, which went far beyond that of World War II. So the scale of destruction in itself cannot be seen as a basis of victory in war.
In the same way, destroying the statues of Saddam Hussain in Iraq or plundering the museums and monuments in that country is in fact one of the reasons why the Iraqi people detest the US invaders today. By simply destroying artefacts, statues and buildings you cannot destroy the ideas and ideologies they embody in the minds of people. If you wish to replace them, you have to be able to present humanity with better alternatives. The destroyers of works of art can then be seen as having captured countries by brute force but having failed to provide better alternatives or even credible ones. That is why they defeated themselves.
The revolutionary Soviets of the October revolution is Russia preserved the objects of the past not only to show what excellent works of art the workers, peasants and craftsmen had produced for their rulers and how the revolution was the better alternative that followed them. By preserving the best cultural products of the past people could enjoy them more fully in better times for the people as whole when people could create works of art in an atmosphere of freedom. In fact, the Red Square in Moscow houses the mausoleum of Lenin beside the Kremlin, along with the restored palaces and churches of the Czars who built it.
It is the same with the Imperial Palace in Beijing, or the Red Fort which serves as the site for the flag hoisting on Independence Day in our own country. Also, while the statues of the British were removed from the major sites they were in and stored in places like the Victoria Memorial in Kolkata and the British Cemetery in Delhi, they were not destroyed. This was done at the time when Nehru, whose concepts were steeped in the spirit of the National Movement as also a sympathy with the approach of the newly established Soviet state that valued the objects that reflected the concrete reality of its history as seen through the works of the best producers of art of their time. But it was against revivalism of this past for its own sake. In Independent India we see a similar outlook. That was why Nehru was not happy with the rebuilding of the Somnath temple in Gujarat and even asked for the idols that were planted in the Babri Masjid in 1948 to be removed. But people like Govind Vallabh Pant quietly refused to do so and K.K. Nayar and his wife were able to win two Parliamentary seats in UP using the issue of a Ram temple to gain communal votes. The same idea is behind the way in which the BJP is unwilling to put an end to the Ram temple issue by leaving it as the settlement of a land dispute in Ayodhya.
For years, Hindus were allowed to visit the images to pay their respects to them from a side gate, while Muslims were not allowed in the premises to offer prayers. But even that did not satisfy the communal forces who were bent on destroying the mosque where Tulsi Das wrote the Kavitavali when he was expelled by the Brahmins from Assi Ghat in Banaras for bringing a Sanskrit epic into the language of the people. In fact, he makes no mention of a Ram Janmabhoomi there but states that he lived by begging for his food and sleeping in a mosque. The existence of the Tulsi Terrace at the Babri site is proof of his refuge in the mosque, with the help of Abdul Rahim his friend and Mughal noble. Since then the destruction of the Babri Mosque has done nothing more than remove the idols from the protection of a building and thrust them into a tent, creating a constant irritant in the political life of our country and fuelling divisive and communal politics. Clearly the destruction of the Babri Masjid has damaged our political life much more than merely destroying a building.
This should teach us that in a broader perspective, the policy of ‘isolate and destroy’ may be effective as a one off action militarily, but in a political, cultural and historical context it can only be disastrous. Destruction of works of art, monuments and places of worship can lead to consequences that may prove to be irreparable in the long run. The survival of such relics of the past can serve as concrete repositories of knowledge of that past, reminding us of how much better the present is from the roots it has developed out of.
The question that arises out of this is that who are the people who destroy works of art in struggle? They are those who have succeeded in overthrowing past rulers but have little or nothing to offer the future as an alternative. Those who have fought for a better future and have a perspective of it, are conscious of the things people have created before them and how far they can serve to deepen our understanding of the future that lies ahead.
This is why those who vandalise art have neither the understanding of it nor the capacity to go beyond what is already there. Sooner or later such elements will be overthrown by the people as their limitations become evident to them, to be replaced by those better fitted to fashion the future. We as progressive thinkers understand how the power of such vandals is bound to come to a speedy end as in the case of the fascists in World War II, but this is no reason to wait for them to destroy themselves, their countries and us along with them. We must make sure that we counter these tendencies and ideas that can only lead to more destruction and conflict instead of the harmony and aesthetic beauty that works of art, good architecture and environment provide as a path to a better future for humanity as a whole. Art may be the creation of a few but it offers peace and prosperity to society beyond itself. That is why artistic expression must be cherished and not destroyed as that can only create divisions and disintegration.
Follow us for regular updates!
Telegram
t.me/studentstrugglein
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/studentstrugglemonthly
WhatsApp
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BvEXdIEy1sqIP0YujRhbDR