The king and the fakir
In 1965, Gen Ayub Khan’s military dictatorship was secure. Ayub’s biggest threat, Fatima Jinnah was ruthlessly sidelined in 1964 and would pass away soon enough. The economy was seemingly going well. Pakistanis artists, new on the world’s stage, wanted to glorify the country. Madam Noor Jehan and Mehdi Hasan sang passionate songs to inspire their compatriots while Faiz Ahmed Faiz would soon join the ministry of information and broadcasting in an honorary capacity.
The Lahore Group, which included artists Ahmed Parvez and Ali Imam, had adopted modernism, a representation of technological and industrial progress that would lead to economic freedom. The imagery was compatible with Iqbal’s philosophy of khudi and most artists wanted to articulate the dreams of a generation poised to enter a glorious era.
Artists such as Zainul Abedin who focused on realism to prick social conscience were rare exceptions. State patronage and narrative aside, visual art was not seen as a public vehicle or a means of protest. It reached a rarefied audience and was considered elitist. A few paintings on modernism were enough to satiate the tastes of collectors and a lack of private galleries left little space for new ideas.
Into this becalmed environment arrived Sadequain after a long period of work in Paris, where he was exposed to new ideas and the heady dynamism of a free and socially-aware society. While his early works had received acclaim and admiration of PM Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, until the ’60s Sadequain hadn’t quite become the social critic he later evolved into.
Sadequain’s 1965 exhibition in Karachi highlighting the social and political tribulations of the Ayub era caused a furore at the time. On the occasion of the artist’s 30th death anniversary, Eos takes a look back at the polarisation it caused
In 1965, Pakistan would go to war but it was already in the midst of another one, even more critical — the war of ideas. What could art do? There was a sneaking feeling, even among art lovers, that art is a luxury. While paintings are not quite handmade bags, most people stop short of admitting that art is essential. Sadequain, however, saw it as a means of protest. Others had done so in developed countries. In the US, artists had addressed politics at the time of the Great Depression and influenced society. They had raised money for the Abraham Lincoln Brigade fighting fascists in Spain and brought Picasso’s Guernica to New York where it remained until the death of Francisco Franco, the Spanish dictator.
However, the question arises: does political art have an impact? The right-wing response is to say that art never stopped a war. But art does not exist in a vacuum. It keeps the flame of justice burning and represents the struggle of mankind. This was an important distinction for Sadequain. He wasn’t fooled by the way capitalism co-opts art. He painted to remind us of the possibilities we are forced to forget. Peace or war, we need those alternatives and he created them.