The extremely depressing aspect of our understanding of freedom of expression as evidenced on TV debates recently aired, is that we think freedom of expression is defined by what we think are the merits of the work in question.
Thus, we have people defending the opposition to Hussain saying he “hurt Hindu sentiments” by painting Hindu goddesses in the nude, without outrightly condemning the threats he faces or the violence he has had to face at his exhibitions.
Then you have those opposed to Taslima Nasrin saying that what she said about Islam and the Prophet is factually incorrect when discussing the violence her article provoked.
Others object to comparing Hussain and Nasrin because they think the calibre of the work is so different, one cannot compare them.
I may think Hussain’s paintings are superior to Nasrin’s writings, but that is neither here nor there as far as this debate is concerned. On the debate aired on NDTV today, only Javed Anand seems to have understood this and kept forecefully reiterating this point.
Everyone has their own opinion on the quality of the work. But that is not the point. The point is that they (Hussain and Nasrin) should be free to express through their paintings and writings what they want to and we should be free to criticise their expression, without resorting to violence and threating a person’s safety or destroying their work.
As for our “sentiments” (what an awful word) these days, whether Hindu or Muslim, they seem to be remarkably weak, wishy washy creatures. Time to start working on these easily outraged emotions perhaps, before we start attacking people for what they write and paint.
On Hussain’s being granted Qatari citizenship Umm, who lives in Doha, has said it best.
RSS