It is a fallacy to assess individual artists on the basis of their association with a certain genre, or to presume they get unnecessary privileges from certain sectors. One comes across accusations about the state promoting certain artists and art forms, often from those who are either yearning for similar support or surviving on grants from NGOs or international cultural bodies.
It is assumed that the late dictator General Zia ul Haq patronised calligraphy and hence favoured Sadequain. This thought needs to be seriously examined because not only Sadequain’s calligraphies but many of his other projects such as his murals at Mangla Dam 1967 and other public buildings (Punjab Public Library 1968, Punjab University 1968 and the ceiling of Lahore Museum 1973, etc.) are viewed as works of an artist who was dependent upon government assistance. This is obviously done without taking into account the intricate and sensitive relationship between the state and the artist.
Throughout history, artists have been commissioned by the powerful classes (popes, kings, nobility and merchants) to produce art. It was only in the modern age that this interaction gradually reduced and was replaced with public galleries holding regular exhibitions. Now the artists’ works are bought by various collectors which may include government organisations, industrialists or successful professionals.
What is worth mentioning here is that even when there was court patronage, the artists maintained their independence in works assigned by the patrons. Portraits of Spanish royal family painted by Francesco Goya are examples where the artists painted distorted and grim personalities of the otherwise glamorous figures.
Apart from Goya, several other artists resisted the demands of their clients and exercised full autonomy in their creative decisions and pictorial choices. In fact, it was these artists who survived the test of time. This does not mean they declined commissions, patronage or purchases of their artworks but, within that nexus, managed to stay true to their aesthetic beliefs.
Sadequain’s interest in calligraphy was beyond all official recognition or monetary gains. It would be relevant to recall that his first job, after he migrated from Amroha, was at the Radio Pakistan Karachi, where he was given the task to write ghazals in neat hand for singers. Prior to that, as a child and adolescent, he used to make his own books with text and illustrations. This early interest in word and image later led to develop his peculiar style of human forms that resembled the Kufic script as well as making calligraphy-based works.
For a painter, who was also poet and belonged to a family with literary background, creating a visual world that was filled with words was not an unusual venture. His oeuvre can be divided into four different, yet intersecting, sections. Apart from early canvases with fully rendered figures, the work can be placed in four groups: 1) Kufic script-like compositions -- such as The Judgement in Paris 1963 (part of NCA collection); 2) works inspired from literature -- including his illustration of Camus 1964, and paintings based on the poetry of Ghalib and Iqbal; 3) his calligraphy -- both sacred and secular; 4) his poetry -- inscribed by himself and published in three volumes.
Read also:A chance encounter with Sadequain and the miracle of Madho Lal
Sadequain also made book covers, like Nikley Teri Talash Maein, the Urdu travelogue by Mustansir Hussain Tarar (In that respect, he can be compared with A. R. Chughtai, another painter with a literary inclination who produced a number of book jackets).
All of this negates the superficial notion that Sadequain made calligraphy because he received state privileges after Zia came into power. In a way, the state did find it convenient to identify with him, own his works and offer him commissions and exhibitions. This, by no means, implies that the artist’s interest in calligraphy was linked with the military dictator’s design to proclaim religion as the prime justification for his illegitimate regime. Sadequain was painting calligraphy even during the earlier government in the 1970s and showing it extensively, along with including verses of poetry in his paintings and writing stanzas in his own handwritings.
In all this, one must not forget the subversive side of Sadequain. In our culture writing, whether it’s a religious text or poetry, is considered a sacred activity that requires a certain kind of precision and piousness. Sadequain altered this concept of piousness -- by transforming the Urdu or Arabic letter nuon into a contour of female breast. But more than turning an alphabet into an organ that is supposed to be concealed, Sadequain’s choice of adding images into scripture was an effort to bring the verbal and visual worlds together.
His illustrations of Surah Rehman, with flora and landscape, are acceptable today only because these emerged from the brush and imagination of Sadequain; otherwise, it is utterly unthinkable to have an illustrated copy of sacred verses.
It was the genius and freedom of Sadequain who created a body of work that would not have been possible in this day and age of extremism. For him, it was a personal pursuit and private pleasure because not only did he never demand any monetary benefit for his calligraphies, he did not change his style of living and working either. He remained a free soul despite the state’s interest and intervention.
Hence the anecdote that during General Zia ul Haq’s visit to his studio in the Lahore Museum (1982), the president was pleased to see Sadequain’s calligraphic canvases and asked him to do some more for the state. He inquired what could he offer as payment for his services to the state. In reply, the painter asked for a crate of alcohol that was strictly prohibited in Zia’s time. Apparently the official entourage was stunned by this request, but the General instructed his ADC to make sure the painter’s demand was met.
This small incident illustrates how an artist like Sadequain was beyond all state patronage. The small-minded commentators are ignorant of facts, history and context while dismissing this significantly creative artist.