Contradictory editorial stance

IN Opinion | 17/05/2006

The Times of India, in its editorial titled ¿Competitive Faith¿ has rightly defended the screening of the movie ¿Da Vinci Code¿. In writing this, it argued as the champion freedom of expression and religious pluralism. Few with democratic impulses would object to it. However, when one compares this championing of democratic pluralism with its editorial titled ?Danish cartoons provoke violent protests in Muslim world? published a few months back; cracks appear in the heroic posture of the newspaper.

From ¿Danish cartoons provoke violent protests in Muslim world¿:

It began by writing ?The right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right. All rights, legal and moral, come with responsibilities that contextualise them.

A right can qualify to be so only if it is exercised with responsibility, to the individual and society. The right to freedom of expression can be no exception.

The current controversy over cartoons featuring Prophet Mohammad misses this point. Certainly, that does not justify the violent response to the insensitive depiction of Islam.

But to defend an act that has provoked people across the world to react with indignation, under the ruse of freedom of expression, is to misunderstand the right. (emphasis mine)

From ¿Competitive Faith¿:

In the editorial defending the screening of the Da Vinci Code, it wrote, ?In asking for a ban, Christian groups in India have crossed the boundaries of civil protest.?

It continued it pretentious championing, ?A ban on any work of art, particularly one that doesn`t purport to stoke animosities between different religious or ethnic groups, is untenable in a democracy such as ours. Christian groups are, of course, free to peacefully protest against the film and even boycott it if they so wish.

But they must not demand a ban let alone call for punitive action against Dan Brown. The state, too, must not give in to these protests.? 

From ¿Danish cartoons provoke violent protests in Muslim world¿:

It added that ?Rights, especially when they touch upon issues of faith, can have repercussions beyond the confines of geography and culture.

Unfortunately, those who champion the right to freedom of expression tend to forget this. The result is a skewed debate. Take the argument that any compromise on the right to freedom of expression will kill the space for dissent.

Can dissent be discussed as an abstract category without taking into account concrete realities? If a cartoon, a novel or a painting can provoke bloodshed, it is insensitive to insist on its dissemination in the public sphere.?

From ¿Competitive Faith¿:

TOI, again changed its tone by writing ?Far too many times fundamentalists belonging to different persuasions have held the state to ransom and succeeded in enforcing a ban on controversial books and films.

Every time that happens it represents a step back for freedom of speech and artistic expression. At the same time it deals a body blow to religious pluralism and tolerance.?  (All emphases are mine) 

As a born again evangelical Christian, I support the right of Danish cartoonists to ridicule and Dan Brown¿s right to blaspheme. However, can someone explain to me the contradictions in the editorials of The Times of India. Let the Truth Prevail.

Jerry Thomas
MPhil Scholar in Journalism
Osmania University,
Hyderabad.

May 16, 2006