It’s astonishing to see the lengths some people will go to prevent others from engaging in activities that don’t affect them or anyone else. By protesting against “The Naked and the Nude” art exhibition in Delhi, the VHP has shown once again that they don’t care about the Constitution of India while at the same time paying lip service to “Bharat”. What value does Bharat have without the principles that form the bedrock of India?
We had a freedom struggle. Freedom from what? The British? No! Freedom from tyranny. Whether those tyrants be the British or those with our own skin color makes zero difference. India means nothing without the Constitution. And these groups that are using political muscle to try and stifle freedom of expression are the biggest enemies of this country.
But it’s also an attitude problem on the part of the average Indian. Their inability to live and let live. One of the most common phrases you hear is “Freedom doesn’t mean you can…” This is used with distressing frequency regardless of whether it actually affects them or not. Take Kamal Hassan’s movie or this “Naked and the Nude” art exhibition. Both require a choice to see them. In the case of the latter, it’s a private exhibition by invite only. So no one can “stumble across them” accidentally either with their children or alone. Every single person has chosen to see either the paintings or the movie.
So what gives? If only those who want to see nude paintings see them, how does it affect you? How long is your nose?
Some overly enthusiastic VHP activists are misusing the Nirbhaya episode to say that this degrades women. That’s bullshit and we all know it. Art is empowering and a powerful challenge to old and backward ways of thinking. But let’s assume it’s true. Let’s say that it degrades women. What are they objecting to? That the works of art exist in the first place? What if they were kept in the painter’s bedroom would they have an objection? Do they object that he’s showing them to his or her friends? A painting is merely an expression of what an artist has in their mind. Do they object to an artist even thinking such things? It’s absurd and a very slippery slope.
The same logic applies to any “offensive” content on the Internet. No one visits a website accidentally. You either have to manually click a link or type it into the address bar. Most of the time you have a pretty good idea about the content. And if you don’t like it, the solution is easy! Press the back button.
It’s just another example of the infantalization of the Indian people. It’s not just women who are treated as children by the government and the people. Everyone is treated like a kid who can’t be trusted to steer clear of what they don’t like and what they’re not supposed to see. It’s enough to make real adults like myself see red.
As Mark Twain once said: “Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.”
I agree.
And if Freedom of Expression is to only express what is pleasing to everybody, then why do we need this Right at all? One can keep trying to please everybody without this Right anyway.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
That’s true. By that logic, every country in the world including Iran, China and Pakistan has “Freedom of Expression”! What makes India different?
Unless it includes the right to offend people and say things they don’t like, it’s meaningless and a complete farce.
I only wish you had 1/10 the the enthusiasm for freedom of occupation and trade.
In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok
Meaning? Why do you feel that I don’t?
In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok
??? I thought there was freedom of occupation/trade. If you mean even if you don’t have the aptitude/qualifications for a particulate trade, you should have the freedom to practice it because you want to, then that’s idiocy, not a lack of freedom.
In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok
If you mean that people who are born into a cast and have to go into the trade the cast is associated with, then that is a social issue. People should follow their interests and aptitude and do what they want to.
In reply to Sraboney
Not sure what exactly he’s referring to…
I think I take this also as where you are putting your nose to sniff, and if it is your job to do so.
If a person is against something (like nudity in this ) then by all means they should ask for its removal if it is being thrust upon them. But if it is in the confines of a private place or another which they know will have it, and is not thrust upon them but an act of their own choice to be there… THen they have no job having to take it down.
In reply to Hrishi
Agreed. If it was being displayed on the sides of buildings or projected into the sky then people have a point. No one should be forced to see anything. But when it’s in a private space that you have to choose to go and see, it’s no one’s business to demand its removal.
If you so dislike seeing everyone being treated like a kid then why can’t you just steer clear of seeing it instead of seeing red? :D Unless you aren’t a real adult.
In reply to Xing
“why can’t you just steer clear of seeing it”
Huh? Steer clear of seeing what? These are my rights as a citizen that are being affected.
In reply to bhagwad
But I can’t see which of your rights were being affected in the topic above. Maybe the rights of people who wanted to see the exhibition were being affected. If you were being stopped from viewing something, then your rights are affected. How can you see red when someone else’s rights are affected? Don’t you consider them real adults to take the matter up for themselves? :)
In reply to Xing
Yes my rights were being affected because they were making it difficult for me to see those paintings. Just because I don’t make use of a right doesn’t mean that it can be taken away from me.
My rights were also being affected because they’re making it difficult for me to paint my own nude paintings and display them. Again, just because I don’t paint nude pictures doesn’t mean that my right to do so is non existent.
So yes – these are not someone else’s rights. They’re mine. When the rights of one person are taken away, the whole country must protest. Because the same thing can happen to them at a later date.
The government is never to be trusted.