The question of censorship has raised its head again, particularly in the light of digital revolution which has facilitated the phenomena called fake news.
The problem is so huge and growing that a new term "post truth" had to be coined to identify it from the various such phases in the past. It is different in its scope and nature.
In the past few years the spin has been so considerable and the monopoly over truth of the companies in the digital realm so enormous, that it is being held responsible as a major cause of changes in government, intellectual manipulation in elections and formation of policies based on it.
There is also an impression arising out of it that the world is becoming a more intolerant place. One indication could be that censorship is tightening its noose all over the world, even in places that were considered to be bastions of free movement and expression.
The question worth exploring further is whether arts can be put through the same wringer as other forms of expressions or that there might be a good case for separating the two and enforcing different rules for each.
In hindsight in the more developed world, the touted level of tolerance was probably built on a shared set of values which is now coming under greater pressure with the diversity of population, making its presence felt in those societies. The diversity of race, religion and ethnicity was there too as well in the past but these consisted of defanged minor groups or numbers small enough that internalised restraint.
The primary concern for these small groups or the less privileged ones was seen to merge with the greater number and not insist on their own identity. But this is no longer the case because these groups have become bigger in size and also more influential in terms of wealth and power. The second or third generation has also gained the confidence which that society has given them to speak out their minds and consequently necessarily demand for more space for themselves. Hence, cracks begin to appear in the mosaic that blended well but does not now.
So there is less homogeneity presently than there was since the Second World War and the groups have started to assert themselves and many issues are not cool anymore like mimicking religion or making fun of ethnic dispensation, running down pronunciations or mannerisms. The greater awareness of a backlash limits the possibility of creating humour and hence acts as censorship, an internally forced one at that.
In other parts of the world there was no pretension in the first place about tolerance on some topics or themes one could not mess around with. In Pakistan, there are a number of topics, themes and even institutions that are beyond reproach and the possibility of retaliation in one form or the other is always there to snuff uninhibited expression.
The more formal platforms exercise greater censorship because these are structured but social media, for example, has a freer range and can broach on the forbidden; or does so because the title "forbidden" is always inviting itself to be attacked or challenged. The forbidden has always been the most tempting of targets.
It is generally assumed that an artiste or a thinker has to challenge the boundaries that have been well trenched in society or for that matter state. History is full of examples of outstanding artistes running foul of the establishment and persecuted in many ways, even paying the ultimate price of what he or she thought was the truth.
The biggest hurdles in free expression are from the guardians of both the state and its ideology for it is a gospel truth with them that what lies within the prescribed limits is legit and all else outside of it is not. This is like showing red rag to artistes who are forever pushing the envelope, wanting to scale the wall to look on the other side, aspiring to change the given reality, order or boundaries well defined.
Most of all, these are about the patterns of thinking and imagining generally assumed given behaviour, social conduct and attitude. What is mainstream is good and what is questioned as not being mainstream is bad is the shadow land of quibble that the artistes and through them the society expresses its desires, fantasies and wishes.
It can be very disruptive and insidious, and that is also its purpose -- an aspiration to live and think beyond the acceptable. Everything new lies out there beyond the recognisable, and that can be the agent or reason enough for broadening of the horizon. The artiste hedges at the limits of imagination and its transformation into social/political change is not inevitable, actually not most of the times but serves only as an exercise in lived freedom through the imagination. Very liberating indeed. It is meant to challenge or question the established values and general norms of good evil, initially as an alternative and evil in the imagination. Many societies and their guardians see it as the first step of insidiousness in its intent.
Also read: Editorial
And it is most dangerously poised in those societies that have a firm faith in its good and evil or in them being ordained by some higher order. In many societies what was once evil is now a norm, what was forbidden is now acceptable and what was banned is considered to be a cherished asset. In many books or films proscribed in the past one wonders now what all the hullabaloo was about, what one went by another label is now a general practice and what existed by another name is only a societal avant-garde statement.
There are, broadly speaking, two types of societies or orders: one that seeks exploration and the other that seeks discovery of what already exists but has been lost. The latter should not be conditioned by rigidity and hence dogmatism which, unfortunately, it always turns out to be.