ou can do everything at Glastonbury, except mention Palestine.

At Glastonbury’s sprawling venue, with hundreds of thousands of mostly young people gathered under the greenwood tree, the festival is meant to symbolise a sense of freedom — the kind certain parts of the world have come to celebrate in recent times.

This was once the dream of those who spoke out against the rigid social structures that distanced humankind from the uninhibited nature. The aspiration has always been to return to something more primal, to immerse oneself in a space free of imposed divisions.

But the lack of freedom for Palestine is still there.

Much has changed in the world. Perhaps it was changing imperceptibly, unnoticed, as boundaries were crossed and unilateral actions taken. This is fast becoming the norm: the formality of declaring war on another country has been quietly abandoned. We appear to have returned to a time when norms, conventions and protocols were viewed as obstacles to self-righteousness and the brute application of force.

It is also a return to an era when music and dance were seen as pure entertainment, a form of escape or disengagement from the burden of carrying the world’s troubles. They became a glorified bypass, offering momentary satiation. Everything else was dismissed as insignificant or someone else’s concern.

And yet we speak of societies that once laid down the rules for the post- World War II order, preaching the sanctity of human rights and the inviolability of various freedoms as universal constants. These principles were enshrined and the rest of the world was repeatedly reminded of those, often made to feel shame or guilt for deviating - even slightly - from those.

It has since become clear that these values were intended for others, not for those who proclaimed them. Even a festival as ostensibly apolitical as Glastonbury is now being targeted for the voices and concerns raised about the same international order being disregarded with impunity.

What do liberal, progressive values truly mean if they fail to consider the entire world, if they look away from genocide and the systematic elimination of a people on an industrial scale?

Protesters have been arrested and released on bail. The British prime minister himself intervened, drawing boundaries around what is considered legitimate expression and what is not. In doing so, he laid bare the limits of the freedom that is so often celebrated. His involvement underscored the fragility of the untouchable façades that have been carefully constructed and exposed how threatening even the mildest challenge to that narrative is perceived to be.

In how many countries around the world will a prime minister intervene in a cultural and music festival? Beyond Palestine, the Irish issue, too, is being swept into the net. Branding disagreement as treason is a common tool of political suppression. One might have assumed this only occurred in Third World societies, but it appears to be a globally effective manoeuvre.

Spare the artists; they are simply doing what they are meant to do, not being selective about freedom of expression or action.

Once an agreement was reached with the Irish Republicans, they were absorbed into the political framework. To raise that issue now, more than thirty years later, carries the implication that it was never truly accepted.

The writer is a Lahore-based culture critic.