Freedom of Expression – Does it have limits depending on the context? (1)

Two incidents happened recently which, while central to the argument about freedom of expression, did not manage to make headlines or initiate a necessary debate about Freedom of Expression:

1. Forced closure of Francois Gautier’s exhibition on Aurangzeb at Lalit Kala Academi, Chennai, supposedly most civilized of Indian metros
2. Dismissal of MJ Akbar as the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper he founded a few months after it merged with Deccan Chronicle, by its new proprietors arguably seeking Rajya Sabha seat from the Congress

Compare these with the hue and cry over Prophet Mohammad’s cartoons by Danish Cartoonist and MF Hussain’s self-imposed exile in relation of his painting Hindu Goddesses in the nude. If debate about freedom of expression takes place when public property is damaged and hooligans take charge then mainstream media and intellectuals are certainly abdicating responsibility. Is is also because some expressions should be defended but others not? Who decides that? On what basis? Does media respond only to controversies as it is linked to TRPs and political expressions (Aurangzeb exhibition and MJ Akbar issue) are not as controversial as those about religion/religious symbols?

Prima facie it appears important to separate the political and religious issues related to freedom of expression. While both are interlinked many a times, towards seeking some of these answers I would prefer to deconstruct and separate the two.

First the expressions linked to religious issues/symbols. Let me hypothesize. It is a rudimentary argument, and will never achieve consensus but may lead to a healthy debate. I believe that ‘freedom of expression’ cannot be a right without limits. There would some expressions which would test these limits. In such cases a cost-benefit analysis, not of money but of individual and social good, should determine which side of the boundary that expression falls. What would this cost-benefit analysis be? Let me try some such issues.

Anything which is a scientific or historical fact or viewpoint, howsoever arguable, is within limits even if it causes public disturbance (cost), because it would stall the process of learning and evolution (benefit). Copernicus’ contention about revolution of earth around the sun falls in this category. So is the recent debate in India about Lord Ram being a historical figure or mythological character. In both these cases the side being accused of hurting sentiments (and by extension creating unrest (cost)), have some scientific evidence to stand on. You can argue with them but not shut them up. For me Bill Maher’s (liberal commentator and host of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO) repeated expression of Old Testament being a book Jewish folk tales would fall in this category as well. Thankfully, even in the Bible-belt of the US, he has not received death threats, yet! In all such cases, it is the duty of the state to protect the ‘right to freedom of expression’. If such expressions are muzzled, our future generations would not know better than we do – as we know better than our ancestors about so many things in the world.

So what about paintings by Hussain and Prophet’s cartoons? What public good do they serve? What scientific evidence are they based on? Fine, a painting is not a science but a piece of art. What does it endeavor to achieve (benefit) that the cost (compromising peace and harmony) should be accepted? Why should it endeavor to achieve anything at all? Ideally there should be tolerance of such expressions as well, and that is what should be propagated and hoped for in the long-term. But in the short-term state should not be held responsible to protect the right of such an expression, ignoring the costs. Intellectuals can debate and probably that is only way a climate of greater tolerance would be created. You can create a caricature of Christ in many western European countries and it will not create any unrest. Bill Maher himself pokes fun at Christ and still continues to host a popular TV show.

There are some expressions that I am more ambivalent about. Expressions on the base of a Periyar statue in Kanchipuram which are insulting towards Lord Ram, are one such example. The phrases used are in bad taste and if you were to say same thing about the Prophet it woukd certainly invite a death warrant! But it is expression of anger as part of a movement against Brahminical hegemony which brought about a social change in Tamil Nadu. Cost-benefit? I throw my hands up. I have no idea!