"Nobody wants to die for a cartoon"
"For those in France, free speech is an absolute. France makes a fetish of it. but that does not necessarily have to be the model for the rest of the world."
Indian cartoonists on free expression and its limits (Clockwise from top-left: HEMANT MORPARIA, UTTAM GHOSH, SHARAD SHARMA and ASEEM TRIVEDI).
The dastardly attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and the killing of ten journalists of the magazine and two police officers on Jan 8, 2014, has brought into sharp focus the contours of free speech and the limitations to it.
It has also cast the spotlight on the contentious role played by cartoonists who use satire to push the boundaries of free speech beyond what is considered unacceptable. Of all forms of free speech, does satire occupy a privileged position? Or, must it be subject to all the restrictions of social norms on giving offence?
Would cartoonists classify Charlie Hebdo's cartoons as an expression of free speech, which includes the right to offend, or as deliberate provocation? How do cartoonists respond to the attacks and how will it affect the practice of their art?
The Hoot put these questions to cartoonists in India. Here are some responses:
Hemant Morparia, cartoonist and doctor, who participated in an exhibition with Georges Wolinski, one of the cartoonists who died in the shootings in the Charlie Hebdo office.
I think, as a cartoonist, the boundaries are set by you. But how you are received is not up to you.
About the Charlie Hebdo attack, what is often missed in all of this is the cultural context. For those in France, free speech is an absolute. France makes a fetish of it, but that does not necessarily have to be the model for the rest of the world. The fetish comes from the early days in the 50s and the 60s with roots in Rousseau but this is not a template for the world.
Did the cartoons provoke? Was it provocation for provocation’s sake? For me, they were provocative, and for me, they were provocative for provocation’s sake.
It’s like testing the limits of free speech.
But society has changed and perhaps they did not realize this. The culture has changed, nobody wants to die for a cartoon. We draw cartoons, we do random sketches. I don’t think any normal person wants to die, even Rushdie. yes they were brave, they were under threat, but I don’t think they expected to be killed.
The culture (of receptivity to satire and tolerance of different, opposing ideas) has changed. It is a loss for free speech but this is a reality.
But I don’t think free speech is an absolute; There are limits and they are set by yourself, but the repercussions are set by others, or by editors, by the style you adopt, the content, the topics you take up. There are constraints when you speak to your best friend too.
There are groups who oppose things– books, film, cartoons, theatre, art…but if they are allowed to set the limits, the result will be anarchy. It is the state’s job, not the job of the lumpen groups, to set limits. It is the state’s job to decide if the limits are met and if the state does not do so, the state is failing in its duty. The state should protect as per the law but sometimes the state is also party to the games being played and is complicit because of the benefits that could accrue politically.
No, I don’t censor my thought, but censor the way in which I manifest those thoughts. It is managed, the expression of my thought will be conditioned by or modified accordingly, - I want my thought to be conveyed.
But after this (the Paris killings), things will change significantly…
Uttam Ghosh, joint creative head, rediff.com
The Paris killings are an attack not just on cartoonists but free speech. The world it seems is being taken over by religious fundamentalists. As a cartoonist and artist, I still cannot forget how one of our greatest painters, MF Hussain, was treated in our own country. How can these people even think of killing artists?
Feeling very sad and angry.
Being in India, it would be difficult to do what Charlie Hebdo was able to do, to stretch satire to an extreme. Which I think on their part was justified. They were just using the pen and ink and not killing anybody by their cartoons. We artists in India cannot imagine provoking to such an extent as we just don’t have the freedom to express. Charlie Hebdo did it deliberately and I suppose they did it to all religion and personalities.
Artists should provoke and their artworks should stir up the mind, taking the society ahead for a better tomorrow and not backward into the dark ages like the fundamentalists want.
Yes fundamentalists get offended, they get offended by little children wanting to go to school, by girls getting school education, by girls wearing a particular kind of dress, and they get offended by women going to work. They don’t like filmmakers and writers criticising them, they don’t like actors and artists who think differently or are from a different community. They do not tolerate religious criticism nor political or of any other kind.
Aseem Trivedi, cartoonist, charged with sedition (dropped after a country-wide protest) for his cartoons :
Several years ago, I had made a cartoon on a similar issue and my friends advised me to remove it.I think we weren’t so mature then to discuss the implications of such cartoons so I removed it.
Many times I feel that society not receptive to different values and principles and political ideas. There is no scope for criticism anymore. Less scope for cartooning now, everything is so rotten. I feel quite disillusioned. I can’t see any scope for change. People are so divided today along caste, communal lines and anyway, they are absorbed in their daily lives and in making a living for themselves.
If people of a religion say that some things are forbidden, that people have a matter of faith, it is one thing. But religion is in the hands of some people who decide what should be shown or seen, and it is not even logical and if a cartoonist does question this, what is wrong with that? If a cartoonist takes you out of your comfort zone, what’s wrong with that? If a cartoonist questions customs and guidelines laid down so many hundreds of years ago, what’s wrong with that? You have people who take up arms and kill because they don’t like this – isn’t that wrong? This has to stop.
I feel people don’t understand freedom of speech. They put people who exercise their freedom of speech in jail but what the cartoon speaks of, they don’t even address. People aren’t ready to look at the main issues of any debate, they want short-term solutions.
I haven’t drawn anything for a long time, I have worked for a few campaigns, but not drawn anything professionally. But now after this, I feel I must begin to draw again.
Sharad Sharma, cartoonist and founder of Grassroots Comics movement
After the Charlie Hebdo incident, the debate on social media and mainstream press has suddenly changed on second day of this tragedy. Rather than ridiculing the killings and perpetrators of this terror act, suddenly the attention and discussion has turned on the content of the cartoons. Netizens have started calling the content racist, provoking and insulting to one religion.
There must be something, which upsets the new generation so much that they get more easily offended than the earlier one used to. But surely this has nothing to do with the content of the cartoons. These are same group of people who had earlier killed over 100 children in Peshawar and to my knowledge none of them had drawn any cartoon against any religion.
In India the right-wing and jingoistic groups and the government are emerging as main culprits of censorship. From books to films to cartoons, the fringe groups are targeting them all. People are becoming less tolerant towards any cartoons or any piece of art that is critical in nature.
Clearly this was not the situation a few years back. Back then, politicians as well as religious gurus used to enjoy being lampooned by cartoonists.
It's only these newspapers/magazines which have reduced their daily diet and created this digestion problem. Frankly, if we start protesting against those responsible for this situation, the newspapers and their editors would come first in the list for shrinking space for cartoons. How many of major newspapers and magazines have full-time cartoonists? Why do colourful illustrations acquire more space in publications than a thought-provoking cartoon with great satire?
I think the situation will change only when the prime minister of this country will share his Mann Ki Baat on topics like freedom of expression.
Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.
Subscribe To The Newsletter