It is an old question that still divides people. Anything that raises this question draws sharp reactions neatly divided into divergent positions articulated so passionately that even any appearance of fence-sitting looks ridiculous. The question of freedom of expression always brings to the fore a deeper and fundamental attitudinal rift. Either you are for the freedom of expression or you are against it. Opinion is always divided and there is no middle ground.You can always count me as one who will always remain steadfast to the cause of free speech and stick my neck out to defend freedom of expression which may be deliberately offensive, provocative, well-intentioned or innocuous. Democracy is hollow if there are no democratic institutions as also a democratic public sphere which is a kind of free market of opinions, views and ideas.
Expectedly, opinion is divided on `Fitna’, a 15-minute film produced by Dutch member of Parliament Geert Wilders who is described as a right-winger by the media. The film is deliberately provocative, however strongly Wilders says that it is not his intention to offend anyone even as he admits that it might offend some people.
While Wilders will defend to the hilt his right to question, provoke and ridicule Islam, Muslim perception will see it as an attempt to demonise the religion as it contains hate speech by Islamist preachers and leaders, quotes from Quran and heart-wrenching visuals including those of 9/11, Madrid and London bombings, the beheading of journalist Daniel Pearl and the body of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh who was killed by a Muslim youth for making a short film `Submission’ in collaboration with Ayan Hirsi Ali.
The film ends with the message that Muslims should tear out some verses from Quran that it argues promote terrorism, and that the Islamic ideology has to be defeated as fascism and communism were defeated earlier.
The film `Fitna’ (Arabic word which means discord), I believe, is yet another Dutch way of testing how far the concept of freedom of expression can be stretched. The film `Submission’ and the cartoons of the Prophet are examples of this Dutch trait. The Dutch have their own concerns which may be as unfounded as some of the Muslim concerns. The film `Fitna’, for example, raises a spectre of fear (Netherlands under the spell of Islam) in the minds of Christians by showing figures of the growth of Muslims in Netherlands: 54 in 1909, 1399 in 1960, 4,58,000 in 1990 and 9,44,000 in 2004.
Let us hope that this film will trigger a healthy debate on issues including the question of free speech. Any sign of getting provoked will justify the argument that Islam is an intolerant religion. Let us first acknowledge that freedom of expression may hurt. But what, then, is the alternative? Censorship?
2 comments:
Islamic fundamentalism is the flavour of the day. Many films show the seeds of fundamentalism taking root in the minds of vulnerable Muslim youth.
Recently I watched two new movies which throw light on the two issues that you have raised - Islamic fundamentalism and Freedom of speech.
The first one titled 'Dhokka' is well directed and has no star cast to speak of. This is the kind of movie that is being made for the cinema malls.
It throws light on the tragic life of a Muslim woman who is coerced by circumstances to become a suicide bomber. Her brother is then inducted into the fanatical group who exist solely to avenge the gory crimes, real or perceived, perpetrated on Muslims. Though the film is extremely watchable and sincere, some facets are kept vague. Like for instance, the woman never reveals herself to her husband, a police officer himself - an upright, honest practising Muslim. He could have taken her case up to bring justice - infact he does so in the end, saving his wife's younger brother from the same fate of a suicide bomber.
The story has a flaw in the beginning itself, where the woman bomber's elder brother is arrested on fake charges of being a terrorist aspirant and dies in police custody. The film does not delve into the truth/untruth regarding this brother, though the brutalities committed on his sister surely sticks with the audience.
The second film is both a parody on the visual media as well as showing the underbelly of media kings. They make and unmake journalists, follow no ethics, use sting operations to bring some zing into their reporting and TRP ratings. This film also is well directed fast paced with no star cast to boast of.
Freedom of speech is a twoway sword, as shown in this movie, so one must think, think and think some more before falling to populism.
Talking of films, the latest film which made a huge buzz among intellectuals - a Pakistani film titled 'Khuda ke Liye' is making waves in Indian theaters. Released in Pakisan last year amid huge protests from the clergy and with the usual dose of Fatwas, the film did extremely well since the pakistani community boycotted all the fatwas. The film went on to become a major grosser.
It stars India's veteran actor, Naseeruddin Shah, who also campaigned for its promos in greta style, citing that all Muslims were not made in the Taliban mould and the educated Muslim's voice needs to be heard more often than the Mullahs.
The film deals with two brothers, the young one falling to radical and fanatical views and the elder one, a software engineer working in the United States taken in for questioning for 9/11. He comes out of the police hands, a vegetable after the kind of brutality he had to undergo while police questioning.
It is like saying that somebody from the family has to undergo hell for mistakes committed by their family members. Shah has endorsed the film as a MUST view for all Muslims and non-muslims.
Though the visuals and the photography look stunning, there are gaps in the story I am told, as it does not delve deeper into the psyhe of the young educated fundamentalist. It has been the case with most Muslim writers and film directors - they have no clue as to what actually goes into the makings of the educated young fundamentalist. Hope the answer is not too far away.
Post a Comment