Amol Palekar was invited to speak at the retrospective of the late artist Prabhakar Barwe at NGMA. The actor and filmmaker, also an artist himself, Palekar spoke on how the occasion was historic. During his lecture, Palekar voiced his concerns regarding the policy changes at NGMA. He said it would affect theme and content of future art exhibitions, and called it ‘moral policing’. No sooner had he expressed his views, the three people who shared the stage with him, curator Jesal Thacker, artist and ex-chairman of the advisory committee, Suhas Bahulkar, and director of NGMA, Anita Rupavataram, interrupted him. Jesal Thacker said: “This function is about Prabhakar Barwe. Just stick to that… I am sorry, sir. You have to stop this.” Palekar decided not to continue with his speech and later brought up the disquieting silence of artistes.
We speak to a few artistes regarding this issue, and the rather disturbing silence of the artiste fraternity. Is the creative community increasingly becoming complicit in matters of censorship? Is it a fear of repression? Or, has the constituency of artistes, been co-opted by larger corporate missions as much as they have been by arrogant government diktats? Now, even the artist has to conform to the “öfficial” agenda.
S.G. Vasudev:
“I think it is absolutely important to respect freedom of expression, all the more so within a cultural institution. A person who has been invited to speak deserves respect and should not be interrupted or told what he or she should or should not say. Some of Amol Palekar’s comments on recent developments at the NGMA may not have been entirely accurate, but clarifications at the end would have been more courteous and appropriate.
"I personally think advisory committees should be reconstituted by the time the earlier committee’s term ends so that there is not too much of a gap between the two. I also think decisions on matters such as the conflicting demands for space for the permanent collection and special exhibitions, such as retrospectives, would be less controversial if they were made on the basis of consultation with the primary stakeholders - in this case, artists.”
H.A. Anil Kumar:
There is no artistic institution or authority beyond those who define it. Amol Palekar, at the moment, was the right artist at the right place: he was speaking nothing beyond his friends’ artistic concerns, while the institutionalised authority that hosted him thought that was out of the syllabus. Ironically, Amol found the source of his addressal from Barwe’s very own works, whose endorsement amounted to this event, in the very first place. The audience, with many artists within, perhaps knew better than him about the comical situation of how governance might be defining culture. This is where what he said becomes important: he was speaking his heart out instead of hiding behind diplomacy, Which is the primary requirement of a creative personality. The audience were silent but the applause that followed, spoke a lot in silence.
Artist Ravikumar Kashi:
I feel NGMA systems needs overhaul. Just having a committee is not enough, it should be a committee of really strong members and you listen to them, their suggestions and not make them dummy. I think it was insulting to interrupt Amol Palekar. You call somebody as a guest and insult them. The director could have replied to him in her speech later. To urge him not to talk, is too much.
Artist Indu Antony:
It is really a sad incident when the freedom of speech is curtailed of any person. We live in a democratic country and power of people is an integral part of its identity. Censorship is a form of propagating a politics of hate and I am personally against this agenda. Arts and artists are core to the existence of a cultural currency of the country. Its time for artists to stand up and unite against this targeted attacks.
Artist Chinar Shah:
NGMA incident is very disturbing. The arts is no longer a safe space for freedom of expression in India. If Amol Palekar can be interrupted in the middle of a sentence and asked to not speak, then this is nothing but a breakdown of public space and support in the arts. NGMA as an institution seems to be in the hands of bureaucrats without vision and no understanding of the art world. Recently, Bangalore NGMA director publicly insulted an audience full of artists for their resistance against the entry fee. This is probably the end of free public space for the arts in India.
The incident with Mr. Palekar gives us all an opportunity to relook at how our cultural sector is funded and managed. The incident with Mr. Palekar gives us all an opportunity to relook at how our cultural sector is funded and managed.
Archana Prasad:
The incident with Mr. Palekar gives us all an opportunity to relook at how our cultural sector is funded and managed. Our cities need arts and culture to thrive. The best state run institutions have administrative and governance bodies that are inclusive, diversely representative and in close conversation with creative practitioners. Ideally they would have senior and emergent artist voices in their boards.
Ensuring that the states cultural centers have salaries that are competitive and keep in mind the cost of living today for curators, facilitators, managers and administrators who have been trained or have earned relevant work experience is important to ensure that these spaces are vibrant and constantly strive to empower multiplicity of voices to be heard.
Bottom line is that the state of our democracy is exemplified by our cultural sector. We should nurture and encourage our rising practitioners, value and respect our senior practitioners and ensure that the freedom of creative expression is upheld and remains sacrosanct.