Daily Times

Freedom of a slave from the master, freedom of children during vacations from schoolwork, freedom of certain rights given to persons as an honour, complimentary travel or occupation of a house or hotel room and freedom of expression are different forms of freedom. President Roosevelt in 1941 spoke of four freedoms, two of which are freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He also spoke of freedom from fear. In his discourse on Truth and Fearlessness, Gandhi too has spoken on freedom from fear, and so did Tagore.

Fearlessly, many poets and artists have tried to break free from the norms laid down by their ‘masters’. When they have done that in the name of innovation, they have verily invited the wrath of their mentors. However, history shows these path breaking bold steps have been accepted by society later, because the novelty happened to be an honest offshoot because of dedicated adherence to the existing norms. In addition, there have been lesser artists and poets, who have attempted to ‘snatch’ freedom without ever being tied to the basics of the discipline. Perhaps, they were driven by dishonesty of purpose in pursuit of fame and an easy buck. When Picasso was a child, they say, he used to paint like the masters, but it took him another 40 years to be able to paint like a child! You ‘hold’ first, then ‘leave’, don’t you? But these upstarts want to ‘leave’ right away without ‘holding’.

There is another word, ‘liberty’. Voltaire and Rousseau, the ideologues of the French Revolution, have given the world the famous slogan: ‘Liberty, equality, fraternity.’ It must be understood that while freedom is related to totality, liberty is limited to relativity.

Think of liberty and certain oppressive governments or foreign rule come to mind. You have liberty to smoke in smoking zones. You have liberty to speak, write, or behave in a manner so that it might not be regarded as rude. You are at liberty means you are free from prison or control. You know you free and you are at liberty to go and see anyone. In all these contexts, the contrasting element is some control, restriction, or even captivity.

If we look at life from inception, we will realise that it is a wonderful mix of captivity and liberty. In the womb, life is free to breathe and perhaps move, but within certain limitations. What happens if life chooses to break free? It results in the undesirable and dreaded miscarriage.

The total span of life, right from inception, has its own freedom and restrictions inbuilt and imposed by nature. The very ‘health’ of life depends on the right proportion of restriction and freedom. Ironically, complete freedom, in life, from life, is death.

These generalisations normally pertain to life that includes animal life and perhaps plant life, as well as of course, human life. Man, they say, is a social animal. Unquestionably then, man’s freedom is restricted by social codes. Apart from society, man has religion, culture and law. Therefore, life, in the form of man, is bound by social norms, religious codes, community ethics and jurisprudence. The natural instinct of a captive has always been to break free. In the history of humankind, in my observation, there have been two categories of people. There are those who have transgressed the normal social, religious and legal codes — who break free from the top and those who decide to escape through the bottom. In the top category are people like Joan of Arc, ‘An-ul-Haq’ Mansoor, and the like. They were driven by a passionate urge to tell the truth, no matter what. Perhaps they did not care, perhaps they did not know…the billion dollar dictum put down by the wisest counsel on this earth and which was later supported by all religions and ethics. The counsel in Sanskrit is, Satyam bruyaat, priyam bruyaat, naa bruyaat apriyam satyam (Speak the truth, speak sweet, speak not the bitter truth). The best examples of persons who have adhered to this principle are Lord Ram and Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

In the second category, I find lesser human beings like Salman Rushdie, M F Hussain and Taslima Nasreen. I am not too sure about Nasreen but Rushdie and Hussain would have been greater without the controversies in the name of freedom of expression. How much hurt and loss and hate-speak have they spread?

The question is, would these self-demeaning exponents of freedom of expression have carried on without market-dependence and audience-dependence? Have they not very cleverly sold themselves and mortgaged individual good sense, individual pride and individual freedom to these nouveau riche posh market bosses and elitists?

The writer is a retired professor of English and a freelance writer. He can be reached at rahmankhalique@gmail.com and his twitter handle is @khaliqurrahman