The chasm between what I take for granted as my freedom and what another believes is his right has always been narrow and filled with the rubble of conflict. And recently this fragile divide has almost disappeared, with freedom and right trespassing onto each others turf.
There are two incidents which have sparked off this debate; one the publishing of the cartoon in the Danish paper, and two the nude paintings by renowned artist M. F. Hussein. In both cases the conflict has been between an artist’s freedom of expression and the religious sentiments of a community. Art and artists have for ever used icons from several spheres of life, religious, spiritual, familial, industrial and others as symbols. Artists have also, by and large, supported a much more liberal view on issues like morality, ethics and even politics. Rarely has art, whether it be painting, sculpture, literature, music or even films ever been created with any malicious intent to hurt the fine sentiments of individuals or groups of people. And never has it been intentionally used as propaganda to incite people. Hence the volume and nature of protests against these two incidents have been completely disproportionate and inappropriate. It is embarrassing to know that even governments are being cowed down to make statements against these incidents. Does this reflect on the maturity of the people at large and question the unbiased position that democratically elected governments are supposed to take? Hasn’t art, both ancient Indian and European, depicted deities in the nude? So how come modern societies consider it justified to resort to pathetic violence as a means of protest.
I acknowledge the rights of individuals and communities to protest against what they consider an injury to their sentiments. But is burning and plundering the only means available to them. Why can’t they resort to voice their displeasure using the same medium which gave rise to their fury in the first place? Isn’t it recognition of a mature, civil society, which uses all available legal channels and the numerous forms of mass media: print, video and the Internet, to battle what they consider an infringement of their rights? Any act of violence seems terribly reactionary and a medieval form of protest, which doesn’t directly impact the alleged perpetuator in the first place but only, serves to inconvenience and often cause bodily harm to innocent masses.
But more importantly, are these two incidents, individually or collectively, so important to receive the kind of attention, both negative and positive, that they have. Where were all those people who are collecting in large numbers in the streets of nations, shouting and rioting, when countries like Afghanistan and Iraq were being mercilessly bombed, by the forces of apparent guardians of freedom and democracy, killing thousands and thousands of innocents? Shouldn’t all of us be raising a much more virulent protest against the bombings, which have taken away the rights of the people to live so that a couple of countries and their powerful leaders can enforce their freedom? Where were the politicians then who coyly refrained from taking a stance against these atrocities? Or are the cartoons and the paintings of more significant nature to the people and governments?