Controversial Writing

Controversial Writing

While it would be ideal if everyone is absolutely tolerant to the viewpoints of everyone else and all divergence of opinions are resolved, reconciled or accepted in a most civilised and cultured manner, a reality check makes it obvious that only within small, closeted, like-minded groups of friends would a free play of expressions be tolerated and there too anything external to a group’s traditions would be taboo. For absolute and unrestricted freedom of expression, we have only the sanctuary of our own minds.

When an artiste, whether a painter or a writer, seeks to express himself in public, he should factor-in the possibility of his work provoking someone or the other. While there may be people who get provoked for almost no reason or with ulterior motive, the vast majority would get provoked only if they feel there is something intrinsically erroneous about a certain work.

Ah, if the expressions of our mind are to become a reality in the external world! But the wise gods who created us, or however we came into being, thought it fit to make the external world a place that calls into play our discipline if we are to negotiate it successfully.

We live in a world where tolerance levels broaden only if an ideal is sought to be achieved by the most sagacious of men through painstakingly cautious paths. Utopias do not exist anywhere and probably never has where we have a ready-made world of totally tolerent folks. We have to create such folks, more and more with all the patience at our command.

While freedom of expression is a fundamental right in democratic communities, it should be borne in mind that there does not yet exist a perfect democratic community where nobody would have objections to whatever anyone says on anything or about anybody. While it might be an ideal to work towards building such a community of super liberal or tolerant folks, till such time, we have to hold our pens or brushes. A writer publishing his work should be sensitive to the sensibilities of the public. He can no doubt hold a view contrary to the view held by the public at large or a section of it. But he should express himself in such a way that his writings don’t provoke the intolerance of those with opposing points of view.

Being intent to publish his work, he should bear in mind public sensibility. Of course, the question does not arise if he is writing to a personal or private audience. However, by the very virtue of his decision to publish or publicise his work, he has entered into a pact with the public and hence he has to play by the law of the public domain.

To adjudicate ‘controversial’ writings, we have to draw a line between the realm of privacy and the domain of the public.

We can conclude that the only totally private province available to an individual is within his head. Anything beyond that is subject to the reactions of the others.

Now, about reactions of the public. All communities have their unique notions of right and wrong. Largely, all communities hold views that are coterminous with views universally held. But beware of individual community idiosyncrasies.

Truth is, there is nothing like universally held truths. All truths are valid only at certain levels. Whatever, truth is that which is constructive and untruth, that which is destructive. For the patient, a certain drug, in so far as it can kill a certain virus, is a truth. For in the killing of that virus, the patient is saved. However, for the virus, that particular drug is hardly an icon of truth, its aim being to destroy it.