Freedom of Expression-an easy concept to understand, why don’t we get it?
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.
Totally agree with you!
One of my friends argued with me by using the classic example of someone shouting ‘fire, fire’ in a crowded theater. He thought that if the person really had reasons to believe that there was fire, then he should be excused (or rewarded even). But if he was lying then we should dismiss his action on the basis of being “factually incorrect”.
But I think the reason for dismissal should be (and I am thinking purely in the context of ‘freedom of expression’ here) the potential physical damage that his words would have induced. But I already saw the next argument coming from the other end: what about the *sentimental* damage that owes its existence to those nude paintings?
Well, then we need to be more tolerant – that’s all I could say to that.
[Usually, these types of discussions end up in a deadlock regarding "where to draw the line?" I would say we need to be completely tolerant - all the way. But that hardly gets any buyers!]
Vishal, usually in in international human rights law, the line is technically drawn when the piece of art/writing actually incites someone to violence-eg, If Hussain had painted the words “go kill Hindus” on his paintings, or Nasrin had advocated the slaughter of Muslims.
The other grounds for limiting freedom of speech are on the grounds of public safety and to prevent crime and public disorder etc (to be applied sparingly) Neither Hussain nor Nasrin have committed a crime or created public disorder-the protestors have.
Thus there are grounds for indicting those who make speeches advocating violence against a particular community (Thackeray etc?) and also for someone who shouts fire when he knows it not to be true (the latter’s freedom of speech could be restricted on public safety grounds), but there are no grounds for preventing someone from painting or writing something that depicts something in a way that is personally offensive to you.
But those are slippery slopes, don’t you think?
First of all, no artist is going to spell out ‘Go kill Hindus’ in his paintings (unless he’s a Thackeray!)
For example, if someone directs a movie that revolves around Hindus killing Muslims (or vice-versa), she can argue that, being an artist, she should have freedom to tell a story, *any* story, without having to worry about what the (social and communal) consequences might be.
Would you say she’s just expressing her artistic freedom? What about her *motive*? What if she wanted to induce communal violence by making the movie? Should her motive be one of the consideration before the State decides whether to grant her approval or not?
*
Anyway, my point is – an artist should be free to paint (or write or direct…) whatever she wants as long as she doesn’t infringe on similar (personal and property) rights of others. If I want to paint my friend’s mother in nude and put the picture in my personal art exhibit, I am not infringing on anyone else’s rights. My friend can refuse to come and visit my gallery, he can even try to persuade people (non-violently, of course) to boycott my gallery. But this doesn’t justify the government banning my exhibit – on the basis that my paintings are offensive to someone.
Note that it could be possible that my motive – all along – was to incite my friend to violence. But I think that shouldn’t matter. [Similarly, it could be possible that M F Hussain did all those nude painting of Hindu goddesses because he *wanted* Hindus to react violently and create a communal chaos in India. I mean, who is going to prove he had purely artistic drive? And how? No one can. And I think no one needs to.]
(Yes, I am a libertarian, if you haven’t inferred that already.)
And on a lighter note: here’s today’s comic from Jesus and Mo: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/03/02/thing/
Vishal, you might want to read paragraph (a) here! http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408
I admit, the whole language of rights is in a sense restricting and limiting and sometimes we tend to lose nuance when speaking of them.
Thanks for that link.
You have put it just right!
I feel that people have a right to feel offended. They can feel offended by trees, pavement dwellers, sun, moon, grass, child beggars, anyone or anything. It is how they act on their feelings of offendedness that’s important.
Worst of all, was the state’s quietness through it all. Public wrath they worry about. I don’t think they care two hoots about public fury. Hordes of people, peaceful ones at that, get quenched when it is inconvenient for the state. But of course ministers, the government in power, and parties across the spectrum have to worry about votes, so it doesn’t suit their purpose to side with people like Hussain or Taslima Nasreen.
Agreed. Didn’t know that abt Human rights law part, found it interesting!