The essence of democracy is the various kinds of freedoms it gives to its citizens. And most important of all is the freedom of expression. Article 19(a) gives all the citizens this freedom and to make sure that this freedom is not usurped, the constitution has included it in the fundamental rights of the citizens.
The evolution of a society depends on the generation and adoption of good ideas, which in turn depends on the freedom to express ideas. Thus there should not be any limits placed on the freedom of expression. But that’s a very idealistic thought. In reality ‘absolute freedom of expression’ is an oxymoron. The limit to freedom of expression is an issue, which is constitutional, social and moral. But the freedom of expression itself is an elusive term, ambiguous in its inherent meaning. Its open to individual interpretation, contingent on nature of one’s sensibility and tolerance.
Considering the demographic profile of our society, which can be best, described as a mosaic made up of myriad cultures, each with a sacrosanct set of religious believes, fixing a cap on expression is a daunting task. The most widely accepted solution for reconciling the right of free expression and the public interest is that this freedom of expressing one's own thoughts should, in any way, not offend another person's feelings/sentiments. But with the tolerance becoming fragile by the day, dealing with religious or racial content is suicidal, to say the least. In the last few decades we have seen intolerance growing, especially related with race and religion. Any work having even the remotest religious connotation ruffles conservative feathers. The artist is condemned, the work is banned, effigies are burnt, and even fatwas are issued.
If we consider these two cases where freedom of expression triggered off strong reactions from the public, there is a marked contradiction in the motive and the presentation.
Deepa Mehta’s fire when released sparked massive criticism from the Hindu fundamentalists on the ground that the Indian culture was misrepresented. Fire dealt with one of India’s many gender- related taboos. It wasn’t only the explicit display of a lesbian relationship that created such heated reactions, though that's certainly the most obvious reason. It was an aesthetically shot and sensitively directed compelling critique of the rigid norms of a patriarchal, post-colonial society that keeps both sexes down.
James Watson’s incendiary remark that “there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but people who have to deal with black employees don’t find this true,” borders on being needlessly offensive. This topic could have been best spoken of clinically without bandying about anecdotes about black employees.
The onus of drawing a line as well as ensuring that the statement/work is innocuous should be unconditionally incumbent on the individual. That would work towards inculcating a sense of responsibility towards maintaining that something isn’t flagrantly offensive or distasteful. But we as a society should work equally hard to work on our tolerance and maturity for sensitive topics and not manufacture controversies out of non-issues.
The evolution of a society depends on the generation and adoption of good ideas, which in turn depends on the freedom to express ideas. Thus there should not be any limits placed on the freedom of expression. But that’s a very idealistic thought. In reality ‘absolute freedom of expression’ is an oxymoron. The limit to freedom of expression is an issue, which is constitutional, social and moral. But the freedom of expression itself is an elusive term, ambiguous in its inherent meaning. Its open to individual interpretation, contingent on nature of one’s sensibility and tolerance.
Considering the demographic profile of our society, which can be best, described as a mosaic made up of myriad cultures, each with a sacrosanct set of religious believes, fixing a cap on expression is a daunting task. The most widely accepted solution for reconciling the right of free expression and the public interest is that this freedom of expressing one's own thoughts should, in any way, not offend another person's feelings/sentiments. But with the tolerance becoming fragile by the day, dealing with religious or racial content is suicidal, to say the least. In the last few decades we have seen intolerance growing, especially related with race and religion. Any work having even the remotest religious connotation ruffles conservative feathers. The artist is condemned, the work is banned, effigies are burnt, and even fatwas are issued.
If we consider these two cases where freedom of expression triggered off strong reactions from the public, there is a marked contradiction in the motive and the presentation.
Deepa Mehta’s fire when released sparked massive criticism from the Hindu fundamentalists on the ground that the Indian culture was misrepresented. Fire dealt with one of India’s many gender- related taboos. It wasn’t only the explicit display of a lesbian relationship that created such heated reactions, though that's certainly the most obvious reason. It was an aesthetically shot and sensitively directed compelling critique of the rigid norms of a patriarchal, post-colonial society that keeps both sexes down.
James Watson’s incendiary remark that “there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but people who have to deal with black employees don’t find this true,” borders on being needlessly offensive. This topic could have been best spoken of clinically without bandying about anecdotes about black employees.
The onus of drawing a line as well as ensuring that the statement/work is innocuous should be unconditionally incumbent on the individual. That would work towards inculcating a sense of responsibility towards maintaining that something isn’t flagrantly offensive or distasteful. But we as a society should work equally hard to work on our tolerance and maturity for sensitive topics and not manufacture controversies out of non-issues.
1 comment:
impressive ..baby
Post a Comment