'Go to courts if you are offended by Husain'

In Devil's Advocate this week, Karan Thapar speaks to author, poet and activist Javed Akhtar and tries to find answers to some critical questions that have been raised by the controversy surrounding painter M F Husain and writer Taslima Nasreen.

Karan Thapar: Mr Akhtar, let's start with first principles. As you see things which have the higher priority? Religious sentiments or freedom of expression?

Javed Akhtar: Both. But in right proportions.

Karan Thapar: All right. If it is in right proportions, then how far does freedom of expression go? Does it, for instance, include the right to offend or does it stop when someone takes offence at what you are saying?

Javed Akhtar: You know. What is offensive is something intangible and this idea can differ from person to person. Ultimately what we have to decide is that--suppose, for discussion sake I accept whatever he painted or whatever she wrote was offensive. For discussion sake, we accept that. Now, what should be the level of tolerance in the society, acceptance of dissensions - besides that, it is intolerable. What are the ways to show your intolerance? This has to be decided.

Karan Thapar: For instance, satire or lampooning are acceptable forms of art whether in terms of painting or cartoons or in terms of written word. Is that the level of offense that the people would have to accept and tolerate or can they object to it?

Javed Akhtar: No, Karan. Let's start from the other point of view. Generally what happens is that this is not offensive? Why are we talking about it? Let us accept this is offensive. Ok, for discussion's sake. Now, what do you want to do about it? That should be decided because who am I do decide what is offensive and what is not offensive for somebody else. So, if somebody is finding it offensive, OK, accept it. Now, what do you intend to do in a civilised society? How do you want to register your protest?

Karan Thapar: Let's take up this issue. What do you do about do about something you find offensive? The Indian Constitution in Article 19 (1A) recognises certain restrictions on freedom of expression in the interest of decency, morality and public order. Admittedly, decency and morality are vague and undefined but we all roughly know what they mean. The problem really comes with public order. Do you really fear that the fundamentalists use public order as an excuse to create trouble and then suggest that the public order is threatened then giving themselves the excuse to ban something.

Javed Akhtar: All right. That is why I am saying: Let's not get into--generally what happens is that we fall into this pit of discussion that what is decent, what is indecent, what is offensive, what is not offensive. We should not get into that. OK. Accepted for discussion sake that this was indecent, this was offensive. Accepted. Now, let's start from this point. So, let's not get trapped into this discussion that it was offensive or not offensive. I am willing to accept for discussion that this was offensive. Now, how do you show your protest? How do you register your protest? How do you oppose it?

Karan Thapar: What's the answer to your question?

Javed Akhtar: By burning buses; by looting shops; by killing people; by burning public property. Is this the way? I am willing to accept that you are offended. Now, how do you show this? How do you protest? This is what I want to know.

Karan Thapar: If I understand you correctly, you are saying violence, burning, damage and destruction are not acceptable means of protest.

Javed Akhtar: I think it's much more offensive than any other things.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: So, civil action courts respond to a book with another book, respond to a speech with another speech.

Javed Akhtar: Very right. Go ahead and do it.

Karan Thapar: This also suggests, does it not that the authorities who manage law and order, have to actively defend the freedom of expression even when it causes people offense to ensure that this doesn't become an excuse for violence or for bad behaviour?

Javed Akhtar: At this point I am not asking them to defend the freedom of expression. I am asking the law and order agencies to stop people from vandalising the society. That is all.

Karan Thapar: But, do the law and order agencies - -

Javed Akhtar: - - Any reason, any reason under the sun can give them permission, does not give them permission to destroy the public property and public life.

Karan Thapar: Historically, in India, do you get the feeling that the governments, rather than stand up for the freedom of expression and prevent gratuitous interests resorting to violence, actually see the violence and cave in?

Javed Akhtar: I accept that. As a matter of fact, all political parties, without exception, all governments - in the states, Centre, wherever, they are a bit too sensitive about the religious feeling of the people. And the religious people tend to be too sensitive about their religiosity and so on. I mean, the rationalists, creative people, people are atheists, are not supposed to have any sentiments at all, any sensitivity at all.

Karan Thapar: So, the governments need to have a stronger backbone and greater commitment to upholding freedoms?

Javed Akhtar: Upholding freedom and upholding law and order.

Karan Thapar: Let's then, having established those first principles, and if I understand clearly, establishing so much of this as a question of common sense, come to M F Husain. In his recent interview, M F Husain describes the situation he sees himself in the middle of as a move against art and the art of self expression. But, isn't that the claim that Danish cartoonist did also make?

Javed Akhtar: Yeah, maybe, yeah. You see, whatever Danish cartoonist did, if some people were offended, some people were outraged, they should have gone to the court, they should have written against him, they should have protested against the government of that country and so on. But, to say that we will put an award on his head, that is not the right thing to do.

Karan Thapar: And burning down the embassies in Beirut -

Javed Akhtar: Burning down embassies. That is not the right way to protest.

Karan Thapar: Let me pursue M F Husain a little further. Critics of MF Husain point out that there are significant difference in the way he portrays Hindu goddesses like Saraswati and Durga and the way he portrays the Prophet's daughter. In this sort of situations is equivalence essential?

Javed Akhtar: There may be a difference. But please understand. This is a difference not within Husain. It is the difference of historical traditions and he is painting certain traditions. There are different traditions, there are different value systems, there are aesthetics in different parts of society; in different segments of the society; in different schools--

Karan Thapar: So the differences determined by different traditions and not by the artists?

Javed Akhtar: No, by the artist himself

Karan Thapar: Secondly, if Husain has the fundamental right to paint what he wants, do Indians who are offended by his painting have the right to take action through the courts?

Javed Akhtar: Of course. They should. And they have the fundamental right to be offended and to show their displeasure and to fight against Husain. But how? Not by entering his exhibitions and burning his paintings.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: Absolutely. Leave aside entering his exhibition. Leave aside attacking the man physically and violently. Let's simply talk about Indians who went to court because they were offended by his paintings. What happens when Husain's right to paint what he wants and the right of the Indian who has the right to go to court come into conflict with each other cause that's what happened in Husain's cases.

Javed Akhtar: The cases are fine. As a matter of fact, I don't think what made him leave or go in exile were the cases but the physical threats, the violence. The people who were going to court are all right but what about those people--in last many years, in any exhibition in India, they have not allowed, someone, some people have not allowed, Husain's paintings to be hung on the wall.

Karan Thapar: Was the government's failure to provide him security against threats to his life or his physical well being that drove him out?

Javed Akhtar: As a matter of fact, it is so very convenient for all of us to blame only the government. The government is also the part of the society. We have to do some soul searching. Somewhere, the society, the urban middle class, that at least proclaims that it is educated, is also responsible for that.

Karan Thapar: So everyone of us shares the blame for the fact that Husain left India?

Javed Akhtar: Of course. Yeah.

Karan Thapar: In other words, Husain's departure is not the indictment of the government, it's not the indictment of the Indian system, it's an indictment of all of us.

Javed Akhtar: Couldn't agree more.

Karan Thapar: So, when Husain says India rejected him, there is a real fundamental bitter truth there?

Javed Akhtar: I would say, again, let's not loose perspective. India and Indian society were indifferent to his problem. They did not reject him but they are indifferent towards him.

Karan Thapar: They did not help in a system and support him?

Javed Akhtar: The system and the society and the opinion makers of the society did not help him to the extent that they should have.

Karan Thapar: Today, Husain says he has complete freedom in Qatar. As you see things, is Qatar a better guardian of freedom of expression than India?

Javed Akhtar: You see, Husain has not gone to Qatar. I don't remember the title of the story (but) Camus, in one of his short stories, has written that the master tells the servant that I am going away from here now and the servant say where are you going master and he says, can't you understand? I am going away from here. That's where I am going. Husain has not gone to Qatar. Husain has gone away from India.

Karan Thapar: I want to come back and talk to you about the other lady who raises the same fundamental question: Taslima Nasreen. Javed Akhtar, let's come to Taslima Nasreen and the article that created so much controversy, which was originally written for outlook magazine in 2007. Taslima Nasreen writes that the Burqa, Hijab, the Chaadar and headscarf are instruments of disrespect. She adds, these are symbols of women's oppression. Even if you do not agree with her, it is really such an offensive thing to say?

PAGE_BREAK

Javed Akhtar: You know, please allow me to digress a little. Till now we are talking about the Hindu fanatics and the Hindu fundamentalists. Now, we are talking about the Muslim fundamentalists. And their resemblance and similarities is uncanny. It reminds me, you know, some four hundred and fifty years back when Tulsidas wrote Ram Charit Manas in Awadhi, he was disowned by the Brahmin community and he had become an outcast. They were upset with him that how can he write a story like Ramayana in a language like Awadhi?

Such an ordinary, common man's language. It is an insult to Ramayana and some two hundred years back, in the same very city Delhi, Shah Abdul Kadir, a gentleman, for the first time, translated Quran in Urdu in 1798 and all the Ulemas of that time gave the fatwa against him that how dare he translate Quran in such a heathen and such a perverse language. So, you see that these people, their minds function in the same way. People who are against Husain are a mirror image of the people who are against Taslima Nasreen.

Karan Thapar: Let me push the Taslima Nasreen argument one stage further. Most people would probably accept the point that you are making that to be critical of the Burqa, the Hijab and the Chaadar is not to be offensive. But, what about when she makes comments about Allah in that same article?

Javed Akhtar: No, I am not saying. I again don't want to get into this discussion. Who am I to decide that this article is not offensive? Maybe it is not offensive for you or me but suppose for somebody else, it is offensive, I am not saying--I don't want to get into this discussion whether it is offensive or not offensive. I take it for granted that it is offensive for some people.

Now I ask: What do you want to do about it? You will burn the woman? You will destroy public property? You will go and break that office of that newspaper or the magazine, which has printed that? Will you do that? Is this the way to protest? That is what I want to do. I am not saying it is not offensive.

Karan Thapar: The question is how do you respond to the offense. Let me put to you the higher level of potential offense. In that same article published by Outlook in 2007, she says that with reference to the Hadith, that Allah ordained the Burqa for women, he did not ordain the Burqa for men. And then she adds. I am quoting her, "clearly, Allah does not treat men and women as equal." Coming from someone who was born a Muslim, of Muslim parents, brought up a Muslim, is that offensive?

Javed Akhtar: I don't find it offensive but maybe some people do. Why ask them? I don't find that offensive. The fact is that I am willing to give this margin to others that maybe he finds it offensive so it is offensive to him. But, I want to ask this person who is finding it offensive, does it give you the right to say that I will kill this women? Does it give you the right to go to the streets and burn the buses and vehicles and beat people? Does it give you the right? I am not contesting whether it is offensive or not offensive. If it is offensive for you, it must be. I believe you. So this is not the question whether it is offensive or not offensive. We will start from the point: It is offensive.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: Let me quote to you what, last week, Maulana Wahituddin Khan, the president of Islamic Centre said to me on this same question about how you respond. He said, Taslima Nasreen has every right to those views, she has every right to express those views but at the same time, he added, she must accept that she would face the wrath of many angry Muslims when she expresses them. But then he added that violence is totally unacceptable as a response because it is totally un-Islamic. Would you substantially agree with that position?

Javed Akhtar: Totally agree with that. I want to know, maybe many fanatic Bajrang Dalis, VHP people - - Babri Masjid was offensive. I may not agree with them, you may not agree with them but they found it offensive. So, they have the right to break it? Can we accept that? Because we say it is offensive, do we accept that they have the right to break it? No, sorry. Maybe you are finding it offensive, go to court, register your protest, raise your voice in the Parliament, in the assembly, write in the media, and give interviews.

Karan Thapar: What happens. And I am going back to illustrate my argument to the fact that M F Husain, for the moment, what happens when 900 people register cases in different courts, in different parts of the country? And that's the figure that The Hindu gave on its front page which said that it was this sort of harassment which would have driven him from court to court everyday that meant he couldn't work peacefully in India and it meant that he had to leave the country.

What happens when you have that sort of expression of protest? It's perfectly legal, it's perfectly justified as it is within the law, it's perfectly legitimate. But, if nine hundred people go to court against you, what happens?

Javed Akhtar: Let two thousand people go. As far as I know, there is a provision within the jurisdiction that all these cases could be clubbed in one court. That's not the problem.

Karan Thapar: And there was substance in Husain's case as nine hundred were reduced to three cause only three exist. So, would you therefore add that although it had gone on for fourteen years, it had dragged on interminably, the Indian system, in it's own slow way, was seeking to resolve the issue.

Javed Akhtar: You know, I quite agree. Leave aside Husain's issue, Indian judiciary is choked, Indian judiciary has become so intricate, so complicated and so overburdened, so overworked and so slow that justice is only delayed more often than not.

Karan Thapar: That's something Indians have to accept.

Javed Akhtar: Yes and we have to correct that and people take advantage of it.

Karan Thapar: Let's, in the last minute or two that is left to us, pull back. Sadly, it's not just Taslima Nasreen, it's not just M F Husain. There is what happened in Pune, the Bhandarkar Institute, there is the dispute over whether the film showing the love life of Nehru and Edwina Mountbatten can be made or not made. There are questions about Badodra paintings and the dispute that that has created. Do you get the feeling that India is becoming an intolerant narrow-minded society?

Javed Akhtar: I think that the level of tolerance has reduced and it is sad and it is reducing because people who are pretending to be offended know that they will get away. If there are systems that are efficient enough, smart enough and they get immediate response, the moment they do something, I think the people will become more tolerant.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: So, what you are saying is that when government stands up for freedoms, freedom will survive. If the government does not stand up, people will become intolerant.

Javed Akhtar: These people keep on poaching in the territory of freedom and we will keep on surrendering our area to them and it is unhealthy. And that is what is happening.

Karan Thapar: So, when the people say that the first duty of the government is to defend the freedom of the people, you are giving me a real example of that. Aren't you?

Javed Akhtar: Of course it is the responsibility of the government. At the same time, somewhere; we also have to think about our perceptions and about our prejudices. We want freedom of expression only when something is being said that we like but we are indifferent or sometimes, we oppose when things are being said which we don't like.

Karan Thapar: In other words, you stand by what Voltaire said, 'I hate what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say.'

Javed Akhtar: That is how it ought to be?

Karan Thapar: Mr. Javed Akhtar, a pleasure talking to you.

Javed Akhtar: Thank you.