There are essentially few nuggets of
wisdom that the arrest and subsequent release of cartoonist Aseem
Trivedi has brought into limelight. They need to be discussed as
it is difficult to take positions in such cases as each theme is
ridden with contradictions.
Before we go into the ideological debate on freedom of speech lets
know the nature of latest controversy. Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi in
one of his work shows Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving terrorist of
26/11 Mumbai attack, as a dog urinating on the Indian
Constitution.
In another cartoon, Trivedi depicts India’s national emblem, the
four Sarnath Lions of King Asoka, as blood thirsty wolves
inscribed with the motto “Bhrashtamev Jayate” (long live
corruption). He modified the original word “Satyamev Jayate”
(truth alone triumphs) to give a punch.
Trivedi’s cartoons on campaign against corruption was on display
during Anna Hazare‘s anti-corruption fast at Mumbai’s MMRDA
Grounds in December in 2011. The Mumbai Police had to ban his
cartoons following complaints. It was on the basis of such
complaints that police had arrested Trivedi and slapped sedition
charges. The cartoonist was later released following the public
uproar.
Now how do we take positions on Aseem Trivedi’s case? One way
would be to follow the conservative position that anyone who
dishonors the constitution and the national emblem is guilty of
misconduct. There is nothing bigger for the country then its
national symbols and any attack on the foundation of the nation
cannot be tolerated.
This is the same argument that currently Muslims are advancing
against the trailer of the film “Innocence of Muslims.” Their
world wide protest comes out from the same ideological position.
We have seen similar unrest sometime ago against the Danish
cartoons lampooning the Prophet of Islam that enraged the Muslim
sentiments. Muslims argued there are certain symbols that are
sacrosanct and their sanctity should be respected and any
caricature of them falls in bad taste and should be avoided.
A similar case was laid out against M.F Hussain for drawing
controversial images of Hindu gods and goddesses. The Picasso of
India had to face the wrath of the hurt feelings of the Hindu’s
and was compelled to live in exile till his death.
The case of Bengali writer Taslima Nasreen too falls under the
same bracket. Her anti-Islamic writings invited the wrath of
Bangladeshi Muslims and she had to live in exile in Sweden that
granted her citizenship. She came to live in Kolkata due to
cultural proximity but she defied her guest status and indulged in
anti Islamic writings that forced the government to take stern
view on her.
The latest controversy surrounding cartoonist Aseem Trivedi falls
under similar category. In his case it’s not the religion that is
targeted but the symbols of the nation. The reaction from the
conservatives is on similar lines as it were in the cases
mentioned.
The other dominating theme around Trivedi’s case is the liberal
position on the freedom of speech. This argument take cue from
rationalist who wants the societies and nations to take liberal
stand even on sensitive issues like nationalism and religion. They
argue that when the ‘world has become flat’ and globalization has
become order of the day, modern day livers cannot be regulated
under the fetters of religion or nationalism. Their other argument
is freedom of speech is fundamental right and such freedom should
not be regulated. They appeal to the conservatives not to become
hyper on such issues and accept such creative work with a grin or
broad smile.
Notwithstanding the facts, these two positions are the dominant
themes that run in cases related to freedom of speech. It’s very
difficult to take positions on this without hurting the sentiments
who are opposed to it. In the end, it’s individual judgment that
settles such issues.
The third nugget about Trivedi’s case was his controversial arrest
under the sedition charges. This sparked separate debate whether
sedition charges is valid in independent India. Some argued that
sedition law was British legacy and should be scrapped. Further,
sedition charges can only be slapped in political cases and in
Trivedi’s case, there was no such intention. As such his arrest
under non-bailable clauses was flawed.
This is something that has to be settled amongst the practitioners
of the law, but the fundamental question remains whether Trivedi’s
arrest was right? Again, the same old ideological debate for and
against freedom of speech comes into play, with same logic for and
against applies to his arrest. As far police is concerned, it
acted on specific complaints and after investigation found Trivedi
to be erring and deserved to be arrested. It’s court to decide his
innocence.
This rises to another question why Trivedi was released so
swiftly. This was perhaps because it was public and media pressure
that paved the path of his release. As long as he remained inside
the jail, he would be attracting media attention and his detention
would unnecessarily give him mileage that he certainly does not
deserve.
There is another nugget that is salient in all such controversies.
The protagonists deliberately create such controversy and take
refuge under the cloak of freedom of expression and drive mileage
out of it. We have seen how Salman Rushdee’s controversial novel
‘Satanic Verses’ with high flavor of anti- Islamic tone was
masquerader as flight of imagination of a novelist. Similarly, the
life of MF Hussein has too been a series of publicity stunts. The
list is long who have take mileage from the freedom of expression
controversy.
In case of Aseem Trivedi, well who knew him before his arrest? He
was unknown character till his arrest on the sedition charges. He
became a national celebrity because his arrest centered on freedom
of expression issue. This is an old age method adopted by crisis
ridden personalities seeking publicity by courting controversies. Trivedi too hogged the momentary limelight in the similar way. His
arrest and subsequent release created a storm in the teacup and he
became a celebrity for the time being.
Last but not the least, the debate between conservatives and the
liberals over the freedom of expression issue is quite hackneyed.
The liberals want the conservatives to leave their position and
accept their point of view, the conservatives on the other wants
the liberals to refrain from being iconoclast and refrain from
disturbing the social harmony. The history of this debate is
pretty old. And who s winning and who is losing this debate
remains inconclusive.
Syed Ali Mujtaba is a journalist based in Chennai. He can be
contacted at syedalimujtyaba@yahoo.com
|