Caligula: Do you really believe in the gods, Scipio?
Scipio: No.
Caligula: Then I fail to follow. If you don’t believe, why be so keen to scent out blasphemy?
Scipio: One may deny something without feeling called on to besmirch it, or to deprive others to the right of believing in it.
****************************
So much has happened in last few days! I can only imagine how terribly dizzy you must be feeling, dear artist. Everyone is talking about you, and your work – people you know, and people you don’t know.
Your unfortunate detention has caught the attention of the national loudspeakers. Learned men and women have strongly condemned ‘yet another attack on artistic freedom’, administered by the right wing forces ruling in Gujarat. The editorials of prestigious dailies and the discussion forums of TV channels are burning with protests against this ‘flagrant violation of the fundamental right of expression’.
About half of the space of The Hindu's 'Letters to Editor' is seen to be used by its progressive readers to voice their outrage against ‘the return of the Stake’. You’ll surely be delighted to see the awareness of our people and their zeal for modern ideas and values like "Freedom" and "Democracy".
It should be noted though, that the same liberal people hardly felt what they often feel on such occasion – outrage, when works of writers like Salman Rushdie or Tasleema Nasreen were banned in a secular nation. Secular! The same people shed copious tears when the pious 'secular' sentiments were wounded by the mischief of a Danish cartoonist, and even went to the extent of making nation-wide demonstrations against the conviction of a cold-blooded dictator, in a democratic republic! That’s our 'right-handed' left* for you with all their kitsch of modernity!
My convictions are, however, irritated by some other doubts. And I think you are the best person who can help me to find the answers to the questions that disturb my thoughts, as far as your case is concerned. I'll spare you all the rhetorics and all the etiquettes that make disagreements look more awkward than they really are, and talk straight to the point. I have made some effort to acquire an understanding of Social Contract - the framework in which the modern political ideas had been developed (by 18th century French philosophers like Rousseau and Voltaire and many others since then). At the risk of sounding pedantic, I would assert that these ideas, outside this framework, not only make little sense but also deceive and corrupt our thoughts.
Please don't panic. Let’s take a simple case - if I refuse to give up my freedom to swing my hand freely around me, regardless of the fact that it happens to slap the gentleman standing nearby, and if my two free eyes choose to gaze in a manner that offends the shame of his lady, I wonder why should they be reminded of my right of being treated with courtesy when they, in turn, like to exercise their freedom of denying me that (Didn’t I step over their right of dignity first? Was it not I who first broke the social contract between us?).
In the framework of social contract, as we know, a Right is always accompanied by a set of responsibilities; and a right is allowed to an individual only if he agrees to forfeit a part of his freedom, which might be (mis)used, to the extent of his/her capacity, to the detriment of society.
This implies that if I behave with a sense of responsibility then it becomes a duty of the civilized society to ensure me my rights. This is perhaps what they mean by social contract – mutual respect and a sense of responsibility on part of both individual as well as society.
Artistic freedom, I think, is no exception, and an artist has every right to express himself, as long as he doesn’t forsake his responsibilities. Now the next question is – What is the responsibility of an artist?
Well, I am afraid I have no idea of that. I think this is for the intellectuals to ponder upon or for you artists to feel in your heart. But I am sure that there must be some sense of responsibility on part of an artist to deserve artistic freedom. I repeat - there is hardly anything to said and proved here. Rather there is only something to be heard in your heart, when you are alone with yourself.
The letter has become more tedious than I intended. So I’ll wrap it up now. My only concern here is that any irresponsible act on the part of artists like you only helps them - the scavengers - the right and right-handed left, run their business. Both, wanna-be artists and activists of various camps get their share of limelight at the cost of people’s sentiments.
Don’t take me otherwise. I am not one of those whose faith is made and broken by others’ conviction in that; and I am not paranoid about cultural invasion either. I don't have to be. You can hardly better Kamasutra and Khajuraho that way. If you think you have to say something good, go ahead, and say it artistically. But please decide your responsibilities and bear them in mind, for freedom is nobody's birthright.
*No reference to any political party.
Scipio: No.
Caligula: Then I fail to follow. If you don’t believe, why be so keen to scent out blasphemy?
Scipio: One may deny something without feeling called on to besmirch it, or to deprive others to the right of believing in it.
****************************
So much has happened in last few days! I can only imagine how terribly dizzy you must be feeling, dear artist. Everyone is talking about you, and your work – people you know, and people you don’t know.
Your unfortunate detention has caught the attention of the national loudspeakers. Learned men and women have strongly condemned ‘yet another attack on artistic freedom’, administered by the right wing forces ruling in Gujarat. The editorials of prestigious dailies and the discussion forums of TV channels are burning with protests against this ‘flagrant violation of the fundamental right of expression’.
About half of the space of The Hindu's 'Letters to Editor' is seen to be used by its progressive readers to voice their outrage against ‘the return of the Stake’. You’ll surely be delighted to see the awareness of our people and their zeal for modern ideas and values like "Freedom" and "Democracy".
It should be noted though, that the same liberal people hardly felt what they often feel on such occasion – outrage, when works of writers like Salman Rushdie or Tasleema Nasreen were banned in a secular nation. Secular! The same people shed copious tears when the pious 'secular' sentiments were wounded by the mischief of a Danish cartoonist, and even went to the extent of making nation-wide demonstrations against the conviction of a cold-blooded dictator, in a democratic republic! That’s our 'right-handed' left* for you with all their kitsch of modernity!
My convictions are, however, irritated by some other doubts. And I think you are the best person who can help me to find the answers to the questions that disturb my thoughts, as far as your case is concerned. I'll spare you all the rhetorics and all the etiquettes that make disagreements look more awkward than they really are, and talk straight to the point. I have made some effort to acquire an understanding of Social Contract - the framework in which the modern political ideas had been developed (by 18th century French philosophers like Rousseau and Voltaire and many others since then). At the risk of sounding pedantic, I would assert that these ideas, outside this framework, not only make little sense but also deceive and corrupt our thoughts.
Please don't panic. Let’s take a simple case - if I refuse to give up my freedom to swing my hand freely around me, regardless of the fact that it happens to slap the gentleman standing nearby, and if my two free eyes choose to gaze in a manner that offends the shame of his lady, I wonder why should they be reminded of my right of being treated with courtesy when they, in turn, like to exercise their freedom of denying me that (Didn’t I step over their right of dignity first? Was it not I who first broke the social contract between us?).
In the framework of social contract, as we know, a Right is always accompanied by a set of responsibilities; and a right is allowed to an individual only if he agrees to forfeit a part of his freedom, which might be (mis)used, to the extent of his/her capacity, to the detriment of society.
This implies that if I behave with a sense of responsibility then it becomes a duty of the civilized society to ensure me my rights. This is perhaps what they mean by social contract – mutual respect and a sense of responsibility on part of both individual as well as society.
Artistic freedom, I think, is no exception, and an artist has every right to express himself, as long as he doesn’t forsake his responsibilities. Now the next question is – What is the responsibility of an artist?
Well, I am afraid I have no idea of that. I think this is for the intellectuals to ponder upon or for you artists to feel in your heart. But I am sure that there must be some sense of responsibility on part of an artist to deserve artistic freedom. I repeat - there is hardly anything to said and proved here. Rather there is only something to be heard in your heart, when you are alone with yourself.
The letter has become more tedious than I intended. So I’ll wrap it up now. My only concern here is that any irresponsible act on the part of artists like you only helps them - the scavengers - the right and right-handed left, run their business. Both, wanna-be artists and activists of various camps get their share of limelight at the cost of people’s sentiments.
Don’t take me otherwise. I am not one of those whose faith is made and broken by others’ conviction in that; and I am not paranoid about cultural invasion either. I don't have to be. You can hardly better Kamasutra and Khajuraho that way. If you think you have to say something good, go ahead, and say it artistically. But please decide your responsibilities and bear them in mind, for freedom is nobody's birthright.
*No reference to any political party.
2 comments:
Bravo! Bravo!
- Sanket
Artistic freedom is not so tangible as the right to swing your arm. While leering at a lady in an offensive way is rather crude by any modern standards of decency, a knee jerk reaction to an artist's view cannot be tolerated in the same way.
Having said that the reaction of the so called defenders of democracy to selected such incidents is just as meaningless.
Post a Comment