FEATURE

Free Speech – My foot!

Public memory, we are told, is notoriously short. Hence we find in the media, players of different class playing to the gallery or even otherwise, mouthing, pearls of wisdom, so also inanities of grand standing, conveniently forgetting, having said the very reverse.  Instances and issues are innumerable.

Sometime ago, a Mumbai based newspaper had carried the story “Shabana offended by ‘Ishq Ki Maa Ki”. Those who are in the know of colloquial Hindi/Urdu in Mumbai would vouch that the above statement is not only very distasteful but also derogatory to both love and mother. It is a song in the film ‘I don’t love you’.

Taking exception to the song, she went viral on the social networking site. She is reported to have said “When we talk about self regulation in our industry, we must keep in mind the identity of women before producing such things. One must be vigilant whether our work is treating woman as commodities or objectifying them and their individuality. When you have a song with lyrics like ‘Main tandoori murgi/mujhe alcohol se ghatkaale’ why is the actress enacting this not thinking about it. Why is she not offended, I wonder”.

Now this is certainly a responsible response to an irresponsible creation. We are all aware that in free India, in the name of freedom, we have written and portrayed women in very poor light. She has been reduced into a mere commodity. In a country where woman is kept in high pedestal, where she is anointed as Devi in literature & mythology she is reduced to a crass merchandise and titillation. Ms. Azmi is justified in speaking her mind out.

But, my question is why are we being selective? Our country-made intellectuals and interlocutors are not always being even handed. We are not really a polarized country, but when it comes to the so-called artistic freedom or freedom of expression, we go to cynical extent in either keeping quite or egoistically justifying the macabre.

Some years ago, Aishwarya Rai, the beauty icon and Nandita Das, an avant-garde in her own class, were attending Cannes Film Festival. Both are Indians but presented a complete contrast in their appearance on the same day and at the same place. Rai appeared every bit ‘phoren’ a ‘La mode’ in black armless dress with back and cleft exposed. In stark contrast was Das, fully draped in a beautiful saari looking every inch Indian, dignity personified. Both were Indians representing their motherland. ‘Who was right and who was not’ may not be a subject of debate, but starkness was apparent. We are an ostensibly free country and have all kinds of comments and observations to make, when it doesn’t affect us. We are more prejudiced and suffer from bias stemming from our idea of what constitute sense of proportion.

This Nandita Das felt, to present herself to Parisians, as a cultural ambassador of India. But back home she had no compunction to justify a sickening painting of Jesus urinating from his cross into a W.C. with his phallus exposed. So also another painting of Durga delivering a demon child in a squatting position with child coming out of vaginal opening. The paintings were obnoxious to the core. But they were the products of this so-called ‘Freedom of Expression or Artistic freedom”, which Das was at pain, to justify.

She was taking part in a protest in New Delhi, some years ago against the ‘so-called’ moral policing at M.S. University of Baroda. This was clearly a double standard. While at Cannes, she wanted to present herself as a true representative of Indian ethos with an elegantly costumed dignified appearance. But here she wants to support a painting of Jesus and Durga – portrayed so obnoxiously – in the name of freedom of expression.

Reporting the event of May 2007, four paintings by a student of M.S. University of Baroda were exhibited in the University premises as part of the examination procedure. The exhibition was probably open for public for a few days and that’s when, the paintings became a public knowledge. These controversial paintings were 1) of Jesus on a boxlike cross, with hands dangling out from either side so were feet at the bottom. At the first glance it appeared, like it was a straight forward picture, but there was this small hole from where phallus was shown with urine dripping into the commode at the bottom. 2) The other was that of Durga, a Hindu goddess shown squatting in birthing position with child (supposedly  demon) coming out of the vaginal opening. Other 2 paintings were equally bad.

Writing in the Frontline magazine one Anupama Katakam writes, “In April, the Tate Modern Art Gallery London had an exhibition of works by……Some works were sexually explicit in the extreme. The show…. closed with rave reviews early this month.”

Now do we take lessons from London school of nudity? Before even the white man knew of civilizational norms, our frescos, paintings and carvings were of very high order. Hence comparison with the London exhibition was indeed very silly. But what this Katakam did not tell was, if those paintings were of Jesus or of Mary or any other objects of worship. More often than not, these white artists do display a measure of sensitivity in dealing with their objects of worship. But Indian artists have a tendency to take it for granted, this so-called freedom of expression. They stoop to any extent and do not stop at anything. But they take care, to paint only Christian and Hindu Gods or Goddesses, like Maqbool Fida Hussain, who started it all some years ago. In their domain of freedom of expression, Indian artists have completely excluded all objects of Muslim worship. Even this maverick Maqbool, who is a Muslim himself does not dare – to take pot shot at his own faith or his people. These artists and their stupid defenders realise in their basic intelligence not to tinker with Muslim feelings or else they may have to run for their life. So, freedom of expression is used only when, the other person does not hit back violently.

The article by this Katakam takes more pain in describing, all thru, Sangh Parivar in Gujarat as the bad boys, allegedly with active connivance of the authorities. That she had an agenda or not was a moot point. But her writing “Some Christian priests teamed up with Jain (BJP MLA) and the VHP activists to take on Chandramohan (student) and Panikkar (Dean). This despite the fact that Gujarat’s Hindu fundamentalists are known to attack Christian missionaries on the slightest pretext” has exposed her comprehensively. It is journalists like her and her ilk who divide the society and tries to keep it divided. The question here is, if there is a common cause, why shouldn’t both fight together? What is Katakam’s problem?

However, just about every paper only tried to tell ‘its only VHP and Bajrang Dal’ who are trouble makers and no paper mentioned about Christian participation. Here agenda becomes more clear.

Writing in the Indian Express S. Gurumurthy asks “WHY ARE HINDU DEITIES THE TARGET OF CREATIVE ARTISTS? Denigrating Hindu Gods and goddesses exclusively is the specialized creativity for many artists”, he adds “Unfortunately for the secular protestors, in Baroda the creative artist had included Jesus Christ among the denigrated that led to a Christian filing the FIR and police action consequently. But even this-that Jesus was vandalized and a Christian had filed the case – was suppressed by the secular media to abuse Modi as if it was all the work of some Hindu goons”, he continued.

What was sad and has compounded this sadness was, the government in New Delhi was using the UGC route to fish in the troubled waters, courtesy HRD minister Arjun Singh in its Gujarat centric obsession. It was the same government, who defended the Muslim outburst on the Danish caricature of Prophet Mohammed as a manifestation of genuine anger. And in Baroda, there was no such outbursts and those communist fellow travellers, those Yachoori Pachories, waiting for an opportunity to hit at Sangh Parivar had reportedly stated “This is not merely an attack on diversity and goes against the fundamental rights of an individual”. Thes Yachuries shall do well to exhibit these Baroda paintings of Durga, in Kolkatta, especially during Durga Pooja/Dassera seaon, and see the reaction of people for whom Durga pooja is like a national festival. May be even Nandita Das, the other Bengali, too may have to eat her words.

Now the question is how does one’s right of unfettered expression, gives licence to offend the people with whom you don’t equate yourselves? Freedom to cause hurt is not freedom. There is no justification whatsoever in being offensive, insulting and inflammatory, in the name of freedom of expression. 

Hence our sentinels of freedom of expression need to look inside and ask if their fathers, mothers, wives, sisters, daughters are to be portrayed in nude in the name of this freedom of expression, how would they react?

If they want to be sensitive towards their own kith and kin, why others should be denied this sensitivity?

J.SHRIYAN