Question: Did M.F. Husain get a raw deal?

The legendary Indian painter and (sometime film director) has by default given up his Indian citizenship at the age of 94.

The decision comes after Husain’s “voluntary exile” since 2006 over court cases lodged against him for painting Hindu deities in the nude.

Many people have spoken out in his support all these years but the support was apparently not enough to keep him from in effect renouncing his citizenship.

So who is responsible for things turning out this way?

Is it the government?

For not doing enough to make him feel secure and alleviating what some saw as needless harassment of a senior artist.

After all, even small time politicians in provincial towns are able to get personal security and guards.

Is it society?

For being intolerant of alternative views or ignorant of its own ancient traditions of iconography.

And for letting chauvinists get the upper hand.

Is it Husain himself for what some say is lack of trust in the law of the land and unwillingness to fight it out in the courts.

And for apologising for “having hurt sentiments”, thus surrendering to the mob.

To which his supporters say this is a 94-year-old man one is talking about.

Is it fair to expect one man to fight a society’s battles?

Or is it us?

For being intolerant of alternative views and narrow interpretation of textual traditions.

And for letting chauvinists get the upper hand.

Or is it the people described as elites who in every society through history have been the main patrons and consumers of art?

Have they exerted themselves enough in this case and numerous others?

Be it the “My Name is Khan” controversy, that over Taslima Nasrin or historian James Laine’s work on Shivaji or the cause celebre Salman Rushdie whose book “The Satanic Verses” continues to be banned in India.