Artist Anita Dube Faces Plagiarism Heat: Poet’s Pain and Artist’s Gain

Artist Anita Dube Faces Plagiarism, accused of misusing poet Aamir Aziz’s anti-CAA verses for commercial art. A legal, ethical, and emotional storm brews in Indian art circles.

1. What triggered the outrage? Artist’s betrayal or homage?

On April 20, 2025, celebrated poet Aamir Aziz accused acclaimed artist Anita Dube of using his protest poem Sab Yaad Rakha Jaayega in her commercial art without permission. Four pieces showcased at Delhi’s Vadehra Art Gallery between March 15 and April 19 featured his verses, initially without due credit. The poem, written during 2019’s anti-CAA protests, embodies deep resistance, making its commodification emotionally jarring. Aziz’s words became art objects—one carved in wood, another on velvet—and were priced steeply. He described this as “theft, not tribute.” Dube later acknowledged the lapse but only after the poem was used, sold, and rebranded. This has sparked a nationwide debate about ethics, credit, and the commodification of resistance in elite art circles.

2. What did Dube say? Apology under pressure or remorse?

After Aziz’s viral post, Anita Dube issued a statement to The Art Newspaper, expressing sorrow and calling it an “ethical lapse.” She admitted she didn’t seek prior permission but claimed her intent was celebratory, having also quoted figures like Martin Luther King and bell hooks. She stated that upon realizing Aziz’s objection, the works were marked “not for sale.” However, screenshots show only partial correction—two works retitled, one uncredited. Her emotional tone contrasted with legal defenses, raising questions. According to Vadehra Art Gallery, all disputed pieces were pulled off the market. But Aziz asserts that apologies followed only after public outcry—not as proactive integrity. The ambiguity of Dube’s intent continues to split opinions across India’s art community.

3. Why are emotions running high? Power imbalance exposed

Aamir Aziz’s criticism pierces deeper than copyright. He points to a structural problem: elite artists co-opting grassroots voices. Dube’s transformation of a radical protest poem into luxury commodities, he argued, undermines its soul. The contrast between protestors risking arrest in 2019 and art collectors buying their slogans framed is stark. Social media users echoed this imbalance—highlighting how commercial galleries often amplify privileged narratives while silencing original voices. According to The Hindu, the poem’s usage at protests spanned over 10 Indian states. Yet, its radical spirit was reshaped into commercial aesthetics. Aziz called it “erasure,” not merely misuse. The emotional betrayal felt by marginalized creators is hard to quantify but undeniably real, striking a chord across creative circles.

4. What does law say? Copyright versus creativity clash

Under the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, the creator owns full rights over reproduction, distribution, and display. The law is clear: permission and credit are non-negotiable. Roshnek Dhalla, copyright expert at Khaitan & Co, told Times of India that artists must seek consent and offer royalties in commercial usage. Even with post-facto credit, Dube may have breached legal boundaries due to lack of prior agreement. Notably, her artwork Intifada, exhibited in 2023, also used Aziz’s poem. The fair use exception—covering education or criticism—doesn’t extend to commercial sales. The poem’s usage in a paid art exhibit may qualify as infringement, especially since Aziz had no knowledge of it until a visitor informed him.

5. What makes this case special? Intent versus impact

Unlike prior copyright clashes, this case is emotionally potent due to the source material’s political roots. Sab Yaad Rakha Jaayega was born during national resistance, not academia or media. It fueled solidarity across India in 2019, with over 50 public recitals, according to NDTV 24×7. Anita Dube, known for radical themes, likely believed quoting Aziz aligned with her ideology. But in turning it into gallery decor, the poem lost its protest tone. Aziz’s line—“This is the entitled section of the art world doing what it does best”—calls attention to systemic issues, not just personal grievances. Thus, the conflict is not only about rights, but about meaning, representation, and artistic responsibility in India’s cultural conscience.

6. Has this happened before? Troubling trend resurfaces

In 2023, the St+Art Foundation accused Akko General Insurance of misusing a mural by Mexican artist Paola Delfin for a billboard campaign. The Delhi High Court upheld the copyright holder’s claim, asking the company to remove all associated media. Similarly, Aziz’s case isn’t isolated—it reflects growing misuse of creative work. With India’s art market crossing ₹1,800 crore in valuation (as per India Today), the incentive to borrow without consent has surged. The trend worries independent creators, particularly those from activist backgrounds. Aziz’s social post noted that non-commercial use of his poem is welcome—citing its recital by Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters at a 2020 London protest. But galleries profiting off resistance narratives? That’s the red line.

7. What is the gallery’s role? Complicity or compliance?

Vadehra Art Gallery, one of India’s most prestigious art spaces, exhibited Dube’s contested works without wall captions. Credit to Aziz was offered only in printed materials, hidden from casual visitors. According to Indian Express, gallery director Roshini Vadehra confirmed that works were removed from sale only after Aziz’s objections. This timeline raises ethical questions about galleries’ due diligence. Aamir Aziz revealed he was unaware until a friend visited the exhibit. Galleries are expected to ensure original content or documented permissions. If buyers had purchased the pieces earlier, the violation would’ve escalated legally. Hence, while the gallery claims neutrality, their slow reaction hints at passive complicity—highlighting the need for stronger artist-gallery contracts and protocols.

8. What are creators saying? Shock, support, and introspection

Artists and writers across India have weighed in. Some empathize with Dube’s “lapse” as a mistake in admiration. Others, including notable authors like Meena Kandasamy, stress consent is non-negotiable. Instagram polls by The Wire showed 67% of 4,000 respondents sided with Aziz. Critics say elite artists often romanticize resistance without facing its consequences. This case has reignited calls for creator unions and ethical review boards in Indian galleries. A Twitter thread by Dalit artist Savi Savarkar went viral, calling it “a metaphor of caste privilege in Indian art.” For young poets and marginal voices, Aziz’s experience is a warning: document, protect, and publicize your rights. Respect must be earned—not borrowed—and then sold.

9. What could change now? Legal reforms and cultural shifts

Aziz’s legal notice might shape policy. Currently, Indian copyright enforcement is complaint-driven, with limited proactive oversight. Lawyers advocate introducing pre-sale copyright disclosures, especially for collaborative or quoted works. Rajya Sabha TV aired a debate where panelists urged a national registry for poetic and protest literature to prevent commercial misuse. Meanwhile, some galleries plan to add visible credit lines on all displays. Educational institutions like NID and JNU are also reportedly introducing ethics modules in their art curricula. Artists now face increasing scrutiny—digital audiences demand transparency. This controversy has shifted India’s art ethics discourse permanently, where emotional truth is considered as vital as legal proof.

10. What’s the final message? Art must honour, not hijack

In a poetic twist, the battle between Aziz and Dube has revived public discourse on ethical creativity. From anger and introspection to policy talk, this story has triggered waves. As Aziz wrote, “This is not conceptual borrowing. This is theft. This is erasure.” His voice, once drowned, now dominates the stage. Dube’s acknowledgment and potential resolution might help, but the damage reveals deeper fault lines. For artists, it’s a warning: Respect is foundational, not optional. For institutions, it’s time to evolve. And for audiences, it’s time to question. Let’s ensure art elevates the oppressed—not erases them.
Speak up, share responsibly, and stand by creators who speak truth to power.