THE SUPPER OF DISSENT

Ennekurichu kanivarna anuvadamekoo Innathe raviliha bhakshanashalyinkal Ennekumayi nadanamonu ivaladidatte Pinne karutha mruthithan madhu njan kudikkam (Grant me your kind permission/ Here in this dining hall tonight/Let me perform one last dance forever/ Then, I shall drink the nectar of dark death)
—Narthaki, Vyloppilli Sreedhara Menon

On a cold October morning in 1917, a 12-member firing squad polished their rifles as they waited for Margaretha Geertruida Zelle, a.k.a ‘Mata Hari’, in a muddy field on the outskirts of Paris. It is said that two nuns accompanying the exotic dancer clutched her hands and wept. Mata Hari, however, famously refused a blindfold. Instead, she stood defiantly before the soldiers and blew them a kiss before being shot dead.

In his poem ‘Narthaki’, Vyloppilli Sreedhara Menon imagines the night before her execution. Mata Hari’s final wish is to dance one last time and to be remembered as a dancer by the nuns who stood by her in her final hours.

A painting by noted artist Tom Vattakuzhy has thrust Mata Hari back into the spotlight. Recently exhibited at Edam, a parallel exhibition held alongside the Kochi-Muziris Biennale, it has sparked a debate over artistic freedom and religious sensitivity. Originally created to accompany a review of the play ‘Mrudwangiyude Durmruthyu’ by C Gopan—also based on ‘Narthaki’— the painting depicts a half-naked Mata Hari flanked by 12 nuns. The composition has drawn sharp criticism, primarily because many viewers found it strikingly reminiscent of Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’.

The Syro-Malabar Church issued a strong statement condemning the work: “Presentations that mock religious beliefs and distort sacred symbols, thereby hurting the sentiments of believers, cannot be justified in the name of creative freedom.”

Art offending religious sentiment has become a recurring theme in the state’s cultural discourse. In the 1980s, the street play ‘Kristuvinte Aram Thirumurivu’ (The Sixth Sacred Wound of Christ) by P M Antony—based on Nikos Kazantzakis’ ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’—was banned following protests by Christian groups. More recently, in 2018, S Hareesh’s novel ‘Meesha’ was withdrawn from serialization after threats were issued over a dialogue relating to women visiting temples. Even Michelangelo faced religious censorship when his ‘Last Judgment’ was condemned for nudity, leading the Church to commission another artist to paint loincloths on his figures. Closer to home, M F Husain lived in self-imposed exile for years after facing lawsuits and threats over his nude depictions of Hindu deities. In 2015, the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo suffered a deadly terrorist attack in retaliation for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Vattakkuzhy maintained that he views Da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ primarily as an artwork, pointing out that the masterpiece has inspired numerous interpretations throughout history. “I don’t think the comparison to ‘The Last Supper’ is even appropriate,” he explained. “The context is entirely different, as the work was created to accompany a play. While elements of that iconography were included, identifying this piece as ‘The Last Supper’ based solely on those elements is an overreading.”

He added that separating the painting from its original artistic purpose and forcing it into a rigidly religious framework strips it of meaning. Raised in a Christian family, Vattakkuzhy said he deeply values Christian ideals of love, mercy, and compassion, and that he sees Christ reflected in the lives of the marginalized and the oppressed. Mata Hari, he said, remains a profoundly misunderstood figure—a woman made a scapegoat by French authorities desperate to assign blame for military failures during World War I. “She faced death with dignity and grace,” he said. “It is precisely my Christian values that allowed me to portray her with compassion. There was never any intention to insult Christianity.”

“What I see in Mata Hari is a victim of patriarchal violence, a woman yearning for love,” he added. “The emotions I tried to evoke—love, mercy, empathy—are deeply Christian. Even if viewed against a Christian backdrop, this work supports Christian values rather than undermining them.”

Art critic P K Rajasekharan took a firm stance that religious sentiments should never constrain artists or writers. “All wisdom is valid only within its own sphere,” he argued. “What is right for religion will only be right within it, and what is right in Physics will only be true in Physics. Similarly, art cannot be assessed using any tools of religion.”

He added that intertwining these distinct discourses is “the utmost fundamentalism,” warning that such reactions reflect growing intolerance. “None of the artists who drew these intended what they say. Can’t art be left alone?” Writer-critic Sunil P Ilayidam described the growing intolerance toward art as a fascistic tendency. “It has become common to see a work of art from the perspective of religious sentiments rather than aesthetics, and then create a fuss over it,” he said, noting that this pattern transcends any single religion. He pointed out that art has evolved by reshaping religious depictions from medieval times. “Even the images of the Goddess drawn by Ravi Varma are not the same as images from the Middle Ages. Art changes over time naturally. Society needs to develop the skill to appreciate it aesthetically and historically, which is sadly lacking among the public and religious authorities.”

However, Fr Philip Kaviyil, global director of the Catholic Congress, firmly defended the Church’s position. He said ignoring the deliberate insults to faith under the guise of artistic freedom is dangerous. “The Last Supper, sacred to Christians, was presented in a distorted and disrespectful manner,” he said. “This is not art but a deliberate insult to faith, and a form of cultural fascism.” He urged Christians to respond “calmly but firmly,” adding that tolerance should not be mistaken for weakness.

Vattakkuzhy’s work was displayed at the Garden Convention Centre, one of three venues of the Edam exhibition. The venue has since been shut following the controversy, and while a meeting of stakeholders was held on Friday, a decision on reopening is yet to be made. Reacting to the issue, Dr V Venu, chairperson of the Kochi Biennale Foundation, stressed that freedom of artistic expression remains a core principle of the Biennale. “We are mindful that overtly religious material can offend sentiments, which we seek to avoid. At the same time, we believe this work does not feature any religious symbols or overtly depict any religious or sacred figures in a derogatory manner,” he said.

END OF ARTICLE