“I may not agree with what you say but I
will defend to the last your right to say it” remarked Voltaire one of
the greatest philosophers the world has ever seen, stretching the
defining boundaries of the democracy to its widest possible. Lately the
democratic rights and liberty of individuals had been trampled upon by
state, “cultural, religious” and political organizations. In some cases
state had even intruded in private domains of individuals, flagrantly
abusing the fundamental rights of human being, envisioned in our
constitution.
In past films had been banned, citing
presumptive disruption of law and order. Aarakhshan was released in UP
only when Supreme Court strike down the state order banning the film.
Essays has been expunged from syllabus, books had been banned in
universities and states. A gory incident came into light from Kerala,
where hands of a Professor were chopped by some religious
fundamentalists upon appearances of some “uncomfortable questions” in
question paper.
Self-aggrandizement and cheap publicity
are the only motive that play role in the background of opposition
emanating from so called cultural organization. The need of scoring
political points and sympathy seems to be the hidden agenda behind overt
endorsement of undemocratic, sometimes irrational lines by the
political parties. The rising intolerance ensue the refusal to accept
the differing opinion and robs the protagonist of an opportunity to
stand corrected if wrong. And if the opinion is correct it opens new
avenues of thinking and suggests new paradigms for research and
development of the niche.
Recently certain Muslim organizations
have opposed the participation of novelist Salman Rushdie in Jaipur
Literature Festival starting this Friday. These organizations had warned
of protest all over Rajasthan if government failed to stop his
participation in the event. In another instance an essay by Ramanujan
was expunged from the syllabus by reputed Delhi University, apparently
bulging under the threat from so called “cultural groups”.
Now the question is how many of those
who protested, vandalized or threatened have actually read the book or
the essay. If they haven’t read it, then their opposition can be
perceived as a despicable agenda to denigrate the author and his
artistic work or an attempt to earn cheap publicity for themselves. And
if the claim is that they have read it, than it is unreasonable to debar
others from reading it. To think that others are less educated to
understand or interpret the author is actually the poverty of mind and
intellect. Even, it is unwise to claim the moral leadership of a
community, advising the community what to read and what not to, whom to
interact with and whom not with, whom to listen and whom not to.
Portraying oneself as a self-appointed messiah is not always
appreciated. Organizations that have opposed Rushdie’s participation are
attempting to snatch the right of liberated readers to interact with
the author. These organizations have seriously undermined the capability
of Indian readers to question the controversial author, or to rebut his
claims if not agreed upon.
Being against criticism only ossifies
religious set up, makes it stagnant and fundamentalises it. Criticism if
seen constructively can modernize not only religious set up but other
parameters of social structure too. So need is to, at least hear other
perspectives too, even if we don’t agree.
We already have a shameful blot on our
conscience, when the nation refused permission to its 95 year old, most
respected and honored painter, who wanted to breathe his last air in the
soil in which he was born. But he died in an exotic country, aren’t we
ashamed enough? Do we want more???
January 19, 2012
