…the Fascism Debate Continues Here

05.21.07 | 144 Comments | Filed Under Commentary, Indian Philosophy, Indian Politics, Media Watch

My questions to Amit Varma’s fascism post stirred up quite a debate. Work kept me from responding to Amit’s responses.

While I cannot respond to every comment on that post, I’ll try to address as many as I can.

Starting with Amit.

Let’s get a confusing item out of the way. Amit says in separate comments:

Everything is potentially offensive, and if everyone reacts to being offended with violence, there will be no free speech left. Jain would probably find my blog equally offensive: are you saying that you will support his beating me up and shutting down my blog?

Also, you ask how Neeraj Jain should have expressed his outrage.

I’ll give him the benefit of doubt. Perhaps he didn’t read my post carefully. I’ve always maintained that violence is a despicable form of protest; here, the relevant lines:

Not that I condone violence in any form.

You take issue with Neeraj Jain & company’s goondaism and I fully support you.

With violence (pun unintended) out of the way, I’ll examine the rest.

My post addressed two broad issues of which Amit has responded to just one. The other related to the casual use of the word fascism in this context. From Amit’s post, you can easily conclude this: Neeraj Jain & co are a bunch of fascists and therefore they did what they did. Amit Varma’s link to the Wikipedia definition of Fascism supports just this conclusion. It obfuscates the fact that there is a genuine probability that Chandramohan’s “art” was offensive.

Now, to Amit’s responses.

He says he upholds Chandramohan’s provocative paintings in the name of free expression. A related refrain is the freedom to offend.

Freedom of expression (artistic or otherwise) can never be absolute. It comes with responsibility. You cannot claim freedom to insult a community’s deeply-held beliefs, symbolism, etc and then, yell murder when the community members protest. When you hold your freedom of expression as sacred, you should be willing to acknowledge, and respect others’ sacred space.

Chandramohan’s depiction of Goddess Durga does not stem from an understanding of Hindu nude (or other forms of) art. Goddess Durga is not just any female form. That Chandramohan didn’t use a generic nude female form throws light on something deeper involved. More clearly, it is merely his crude attempt at overnight fame. And if Amit says this fact is irrelevant I’d like to draw a parallel. If somebody posts nude pictures/art of a friend/colleague on the Internet, I’d argue that the victim cannot sue the offender simply because the offender has exercised his/her right of free expression. If that sounds absurd, I’ll offer a tamer example. How would somebody react if an artist exhibits pictures of that person’s parents making love?

On the question of why Neeraj & co don’t find Khajuraho and Kama Sutra offensive, Amit responds with Why are you asking me this? Ask Neeraj? I guess my question wasn’t clear enough. It was partly rhetorical, but mostly commonsense. The entire gamut of Hindu eroticism is rooted in the traditions of Sanatana Dharma. Taken independently, the erotic element in Kalidasa’s epic poems is a masterpiece in itself but it is always subordinated to the only goal that motivated it: moksha or liberation. I cannot detect any such understanding in Chandramohan’s “art.”

Amit also says his “support of free speech does not depend on the religion of the thugs in question.” I agree. I’m a vocal defendant of hurt Hindu sentiments while I supported free speech in the Danish controversy. I don’t deny other communities their right to feel offended/hurt.

But what really needs examination is what their religions say about themselves and about free speech. Islam forbids painting. No known image of Allah or Mohammad exists. Christianity has a huge list of things that are considered blasphemous. Hinduism’s greatest of saints frequently cursed their favourite Gods, a move that would result in certain death in Islam. Yet their followers loved them all the more for it because it denoted their closeness to the diety. The basis of this kind of accommodation lies in Sanatana Dharma’s inclusiveness. The fact that even Mohammad was (erroneously) given an avatar-like status is just one of the more visible proofs of its all-encompassing nature. These are just some of the features of free speech, freedom, democracy, etc that we’re so proud of. Among other things, Goddess Durga symbolizes this abundance of spirit. You cannot therfore, ask Hindus to uphold Chandramohan’s perversion of this symbolism in the name of protecting free expression.

I treated the Baroda controversy as an independent issue, so it’s puzzling why Amit mentioned the Denmark cartoon issue. A related comment is why we shouldn’t have something similar to the 1st Amendment. Every country shapes its laws based on its unique historical experiences, challenges and other precedents. Which is perhaps why the West has no holy cows. But why do we need to apply the same yardstick to India? The West isn’t easily offended with gross depictions of Jesus and other Christian symbolism–that is an extreme consequence of religious oppression.

But our experience is different.

Like millions of people, I revere Goddess Durga as my own mother. That is one of the chief reasons I’m certainly hurt and offended at Chandramohan’s “art.” The extreme argument that freedom of expression is supreme denies basic human emotions. It is tyranny in another name: you don’t have a right to be offended because it goes against the state principles of free expression. Lest you fire me for being undemocratic, anti-freedom, anti-whatever, I fully support people expressing themselves in whatever acceptable, creative, decent, proper and sedate form they see fit. But there’s a limit to that freedom. Responsibility, as I said earlier.

There’s no absolute right or freedom to cause absolute offence.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

timeline

144 Comments