The debate over artistic freedom in India has exposed the extent to which an authentic liberal tradition has almost no traction in contemporary politics. The quality of arguments being advanced, even by defenders of artistic freedom, misconstrue the issue and have lent themselves to all kinds of partisan agendas. It is important to clear away the red herrings in order to understand what is truly at stake.

Arguments over free speech tend to get quickly communalised. An obtuse complacency prevents us from acknowledging this. The communalisation turns around two axes. The first is that none of the political parties defend freedom on principle. They see the right to expression as a discretionary dole to create competition between communities. With what straight face can parties that ban Taslima Nasreen or Salman Rushdie now defend artistic freedom? The second axis of communalisation is that there is a perception, right or wrong, that when Hindu gods or goddesses are lampooned, free speech is mobilised as an argument; but a lampooning of Islamic symbols is seen as an anti-minority move. For those of us who believe that individuals ought to have the right to lampoon any religion they wish, this is a problem. For it is still very difficult to detach freedom of expression arguments from arguments about community sensitivities. To put it bluntly, if the sensitivities of any community are used as trump cards to abridge freedom of expression, a free society will be put in peril. How many liberals are willing to have the courage to overcome the sensitivities of these identities?

... contd.