Religious matters are a sensitive issue and should be treated with the delicacy they deserve. What is freedom of expression for one person can be irreverence for the other. As the uproar following the publication of unseemly cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad by a Danish newspaper in 2005—leading to the deaths of over 100 people around the world—showed, matters of religion are not to be trifled with. Right now anger of Muslims around the world is boiling over what is clearly a hideous misappropriation of life and teachings of Prophet Mohammad in a Youtube video, again leading to many unnecessary deaths, including that of Chris Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya.
Now, Nepal wrestles with the question of the ambit of freedom of expression generated by artist Manish Harijan’s ‘blasphemous’ paintings of Hindu gods and goddesses. Indeed, objections may be raised over Harijan’s cartoons—it isn’t hard to see why some adherents of the Hindu faith might find a painting with Goddess Kali showing her middle-finger objectionable. But surely, in a democratic society such matters are to be settled through meaningful debate between the artist in question and the offended party. Instead, a representative of World Hindu Federation has been accused of threatening Harijan with his life for his paintings. Such threats are inexcusable.
We believe as a secular country, Nepal should treat all religions with respect, and the Hindu religion is no different. This should be applicable not just in the case of the state, but also its people, including the artists. In the aftermath of the 2006 Jana Andolan, the question of freedom of expression gained new prominence. The draconian provisions to control media under the royal regime were rightly swept aside, and replaced by laws more in tune with the spirit of free speech. In this line, Article 12 (3, a) of the interim constitution guarantees the freedom of opinion and expression for everyone, provided that the act in question does not “jeopardize the harmonious relations subsisting among the peoples of various castes, tribes, religion or communities... or on any act which may be contrary to decent public behavior or morality.”
Nebulous concepts like ‘decent public behavior’ and ‘morality’ can be easily abused by the state to suppress dissent, as was the case after the 2005 royal coup. Thus it would not be a bad idea not to incorporate such dubious concepts in the new constitution. But there is a lot to the claim that some checks should be established to curb activities that jeopardize relationship between people of different faiths and beliefs. For instance, German law criminalizes sporting of Nazi paraphernalia as such a display could pose serious risk to communal harmony among its people. That said, it would be preposterous to curb artistic freedom just because a work of art is not to the taste of some people, who would like the freedom restricted to meet their vested interests.
We are walking a very thin line indeed. Nonetheless, when it comes to religious matters, one would do well to err on the side of caution, considering the horrific ramifications these matters can have. On a positive note, Harijan’s case has sparked the much-needed debate on freedom of expression at a time the country is debating a new constitution.
Related story
Visual artist Reeta Manandhar receives prestigious Fine Art Awa...
