The controversy over Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code underlines the grave threat to the freedom of artistic and literary expression at the hands of religious fundamentalists and political opportunists, firing from the shoulders and acting on behalf of anonymous masses.
Certainly, freedom does not allow us to run into a crowded theatre and shout 'fire'. But judging from the Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasrin, James Laine and M.F. Husain controversies, among others, are we as a society getting oversensitive and politically correct?
Questions: Is protecting communal harmony just an excuse to shackle freedom? Or does our freedom end where the other person's nose begins? In jumping on to the ban wagon so often, are we only strengthening the hands of fundamentalist forces? If freedom has its limits, who decides what is OK or not OK? And if we keep curtailing our freedoms, will we be any different from any banana republic?
Also see: HOLLYWOOD HERESY in The New Yorker
Of course, freedom has its limits. That’s why the Constitution talks of “reasonable restrictions” while talking of Article 19. However, what we need to ponder is whether this freedom is only in danger when Christian interests are at stake. Where was all this breast-beating about freedom when the Danish cartoon controversy was raging?
Nope. Freedom of speech should override all concerns about “affecting someone’s sensibilities”. That is the democratic way. It is also the Hindu way. Which is why all Hindu scriptures (and epics) have equal “footage” for both sides.
If people’s sensibilities are affected, they should not buy the book or see the movie. As simple as that.
First of all- Thanks to the ‘Churumuri Poll’s, for raising this great and crucial question. Although, since the French Revolution, the world is infatuated by this ‘great’ word ‘FREEDOM’ this question “Does Freedom have its limits?” still remains unanswered. And unfortunately, each of the contemporary ‘great’ concepts like Republic, Democracy, Constitution, Rule of Law, Justice and Equality etc. are being compelled to evolve under the aegis of this still incomplete definition and vogue concept of Freedom.
Therefore, I will not dare to explain my understanding of freedom here and try to convince or confuse the other’s concept of freedom. Why? Because, firstly, it’s very difficult to express it in words and examples. Secondly, there are maximum chances of myself ending up with a collection of contradictory arguments and eventually a meaningless prose. Thirdly, I still haven’t found a concluding, convincing answer yet.
But I wish to say that one should never give up this question or convince himself with an easy answers. It’s not an abstract philosophical question but it’s a question every individual should always consciously pursue while acting in this world. Because this unanswered question is ‘confusingly inherent’ in the each and every single being (living or non living) in this universe. It is ‘confusingly inherent’ in beings, existence.
It is ‘confusingly inherent’ in our beings, our existence. It is ‘confusingly inherent’ in each and every concept of this human civilization. It is ‘confusingly inherent’ in each and every single act of us, human beings. ‘Confusingly inherent’ because each and every single act of us, human beings, is itself an enquiry of the ‘limits of freedom’ and unfortunately most of the time we are not conscious about this enquiry.
And what does this increasing ‘Over-sensitiveness’ and ‘Politically Correctness’ in the society shows? It shows that we have given up this question in favour of easy but incomplete answers. And opposing any kind of intellectual creativity on any grounds means opposing the movement of intellectual enquiry and thereby opposing the very freedom of intellect. Thus we are ending up with opposing the very essence of existence of beings, i.e. FREEDOM.