By Kitdor H Blah
It has been a good twenty two days since the Campus Talk was aired on 4frontMedia on the subject ‘Freedom of Expression in Educational Institutions.’ The talk centered on the event of a school principal being issued show cause notice by the government on account of students playing the Prah song on the occasion of Teachers’ Day. I will take the liberty of reimagining that talk, having each panelist represent a certain character in the scene.
First, there is Prof. Myrboh, spokesman of the VPP, who represents the character of the Political Party. The Hon’ble MLA, Ampareen Lyngdoh, represents the character of the Government. Prof. Kharshiing, Mass Media department, St. Anthony’s College, represents the Patron of arts. Mr. Smiling Mylliemngap represents the Artist. Prof. Lyngdoh, Music Deptt., St. Anthony’s College, represents the Institution of Music. Mr. Tarun Bhartiya represents the Provocateur. The student, Mr. Kharbani and the moderator, Ms. Marwein, represent the characters of the Student and the Moderator in this scene too. I will also take the liberty of adding two more characters, the Moralist and the Critic.
The Moderator asks whether the event in question is protected under the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression. Enters the Party, which immediately distances itself from the song by showing how the Prah song is not the Party’s anthem, as it has not submitted any claim of ownership over the song nor has the Party named it as its official song. The question of the school engaging in political activity becomes redundant if the song is not the Party’s official song. The Patron of arts picks up on this, and quips that art is meant to inspire hope, and the song, as a work of art, inspires hope for change and better governance, as symbolized by the Prah or winnowing fan. The Government, either amused or annoyed, ridiculed the Patron’s idealistic speech about the song, and says that the song is popular because of the music, and not the words, thus almost reducing the song to a jamming track and not an inspiring piece of art. The Government also picks up on the Party’s remarks and suggested that the Artist cut up bits of the song to give it a more wider appeal and permanently dissociate it from the Party. The Government even suggested that the Artist should get paid for every instance that the song is played. The Moderator enthusiastically agreed and pushed this idea to the Artist. The Artist, who has long felt he deserved recognition for his work, gleamed at this suggestion, saying that when people and children dance to his song, he is rewarded with great joy, but he is not averse to the idea of monetary rewards too. The Patron of arts expressed agreement. The Government, by patronizing the Artist, gained the genuine favour of the Patron, and the irony was lost on almost everybody.
The Artist, who was not familiar with the ways of copyright and royalties, invited assistance from the Government and the Patron. The Institution of Music came in and informed that it is still studying up on it, and recent changes in the laws, and it will surely help protect the Artist’s right to ownership. The Provocateur leaned in, and mirrored the Government’s earlier portrayal of the song as a jamming track. But the Provocateur added that it is a jamming anthem that inspires hope. So, the panel seems to have converged in appreciation for the talent of the Artist, and they all seem to have come to an unexpected consensus – the song is an enjoyable piece of music, the Artist deserves recognition, all who play the song do it for pleasure or hope and thus, playing the song is not necessarily a political activity. If the panel was a jury, the verdict would be that the school principal was not engaging in political activity, and the show cause was not justified, having no basis on rule of law. At this point, the Moderator invited the Student to weigh in, but the Student said that he did not come with opinions on the issue, but that he came to listen, absorb and learn. So, the Student may have taken it all in and agreed with the verdict, since the panel all seemed to converge at this point. But this convergence is to be challenged by the Provocateur.
The Provocateur then fires a shot at the hypocrisy of society, including the panelists, accusing all of only believing in freedom of expression for what they agree with, and not for the things they do not, and posited a challenge that those who say that playing the Prah song in school is freedom of expression, would not say the same about students playing satanic music. Having come to a consensus, the Provocateur has pulled the rug of blissful convergence from under the panelists, and forced them to either be consistent and endorse even satanic music in school, or be inconsistent and be stamped with ‘Hypocrisy.’ Satanic Music or Hypocrisy? A damning choice.
The Patron chose consistency, on the condition that playing satanic music can be allowed if it does not result in anarchy. The Party itself did not comment on this, having made its own case for political freedom, and perhaps because the Provocateur’s stance was seen as provocation or extremism. The Government only opined that the subject itself is debatable. But no one chose to disallow satanic music outright. No one chose inconsistency outright. The verdict of the dialogue was not clearer than in its effects on the Student, who, having digested all that had been said, reflected the consensus that those who believe in Freedom of Expression cannot be inconsistent, and must endorse even the freedom to play satanic music in schools.
At this point, I introduce the ninth character, namely, the Moralist. The Moralist shuddered at the idea of unrestrained freedom as proposed by the Provocateur and how it might be hijacked by the godless and the amoral. He submitted that in the name of all that is good and holy, Freedom of Expression cannot mean that schools should allow even the playing of satanic music. Freedom, says the Moralist, cannot be extended to what is evil, and what can be more evil than the direct opposition to God? Surely, freedom cannot mean to be free of all order, or morality, or good? The Moralist concludes by saying that Freedom was fought for and realized by men who saw it as the right to do what you ought, not merely what you wish. It is the Moralist who has now pulled the rug of merry consensus from under the panelists. The Moralist has now forced the panel to choose between grounding Freedom on Morality, or to divorce it from all Morality. At this point, I introduce the last character, namely the Critic. The Critic starts by saying that Freedom of Expression exists to protect the people from the Government. Freedom of expression means political freedom, and the Government should come clean on this. The Critic expressed dismay that the Government fails to see that Freedom of Expression is inherently linked to political expressions. The Critic was also disappointed with the Moderator for being too enthusiastic with the attempt by the Government to patronize the Artist. The Critic questioned the Artist himself, asking him if he really thought it was a good idea to monetize his song, as that is the surest way to kill it off. What the Government cannot stop by banning, monetization will, as it will disincentivize people from using the song. The Critic then tells the Party that the song is indelibly associated with it, even if not officially as the Party has rightly stated, but through its ideals, which represents the hope that the song talks about, which is the promise of clean politics. The Critic then questions the Patron’s ready surrender of all that is hopeful and beautiful, for the sake of Freedom. Would the Patron, who had eloquently described art as something that gives hope, now accept satanic music in schools? The Critic pointed out that in order to be consistent about Freedom, the Patron had nonetheless embraced inconsistency in her appreciation of art that is hopeful and beautiful. The Critic then tells the Student that while it is admirable that he came without preconceived ideas, yet he would be wrong if he, like the Patron, were to allow his worldview to suffer inconsistency just so his idea of Freedom would not. But the Student would do well to also take into account what the Moralist had to say.
The Critic then tells the Moralist that he had spoken rightly, for to be free from God is to be chained to the devil, and to be free from the devil is to be chained to God, just as to be free from disease is to be chained to health, and to be chained to sickness is to be free from health. It must therefore also be true, says the critic, that to be absolutely free is to be free from all shackles, including the shackles of freedom itself. Lastly, the Critic turns to the Provocateur and warns him that if Freedom were to be removed from all grounds of morality, Freedom would die under its own weight. A moral ground ensures that Freedom is a moral right. Why would it still be moral to have Freedom, if Freedom itself has been freed from all grounds of morality? Freedom must be grounded on morality, and morality cannot be neutral. It is either God or Satan. The Critic asks, “When your children are hungry, do you give them snakes and scorpions? Even so, when the people want Freedom, why are you giving them Satanism? The worldview that divorces Freedom from morality, is the worldview that will have the power to kill it.”