If a nation were a person, then how would she deal with freedom? The question of freedom has become exceedingly complex politically – although it always was philosophically – because even issues outside the realm of social and armed conflict have become politicised. Is political independence the same as personal freedom? Can we deal with border conflicts the way in which we treat our neighbour’s backyard? Is the pugnacity for democracy the same as one for glory? Is America free or are its people chained to one idea of freedom?
As an outsider, even as I am aware there is much self-introspection within, the U.S. pushes me to re-examine the concept of independence. One obvious reason is that most of us have been brought up on stories of the great melting pot. Logically speaking, a melting pot takes away the independence of different ingredients. Therefore, we have the patronage of multiculturalism; I deliberately call it patronage because the Otherness remains the beneficiary of tolerance. It is partly because the United States, like many other societies, would like to hold on to its ‘purity’. Strangely enough, although it cannot claim to be a race, the racism prevalent cannot be ignored. Yet, it is American society that pushes the patriotic principle to its limits.
How free is patriotism? Do the citizens have to suffer from the xenophobia of their leaders? This subject would apply to almost every country for, whether we like it or not, there is an element of Americanisation that has entered our shores in some form or the other. Do the people believe in the wars that the U.S. fights outside its shores? Are they free to stop it?
As celebrations were on for the Fourth of July, I read this rather sad observation in an Op-ed in The Los Angeles Times:
“I speak not of the flower-covered vehicles that lumber slowly down Colorado Boulevard every year, not far from the golf course that sits almost adjacent to Pasadena, but of the airborne kind capable of dropping nuclear warheads almost anywhere on the planet. Around 8 a.m., a B-2 stealth bomber made a low pass over us, banked right and flew south as it gained altitude over the San Gabriel Valley. The whole thing was over in a few seconds. Mission accomplished, I suppose.”
It has been exit time from Iraq and Afghanistan. They are miles away. The guns are being fired in universities. There is angst within.
The nation got freedom on a certain date. The outsiders were thrown out. Are those who were born later naturally free? I know that as an Indian, almost everyone who did not suffer from the calamitous Partition is considered fortunate to be born free. This leads me to delve into some questions about what constitutes such freedom. Is birth a matter of choice? Moreover, is choice a valid yardstick of freedom? You enter a mall and have an array of brands on display. You opt for one over the other based on price, quality (if used earlier), its adept marketing, the retail prompting, needs, and whims. When we make such a choice we are not free but basing our purchases on demand and supply.
Take this argument further to the discussion on freedom of expression. An opinion is an expression that we give freely; organised dissent is not necessarily so. It could be a crucial way to deal with established laws and the system but it does not as a consequence make us free. And, we need to be honest about this: we value our freedom even if it means not quite letting others have the same. That is the reason I had said once that love is not unconditional because there are expectations of reciprocity.
This would apply to other areas of convergence and divergence. Today when I read Salman Rushdie hold forth, it only sharply delineated the nature of choice. He said, "Free speech…you say what you like, I choose what I listen to. I write what I like, you choose what you read.” I wonder about such use of choice. If we follow the trend, then can we say that if they issue fatwas against him, he has the choice to save his head and the price over it? How many of these prominent people who are victims of repressive regimes or thought have fought for the rights of others lesser known, in less visible fields – the refugees, the displaced who have no art to hang or hang on to?
Are such choices limited binaries – you say this, I say that? Go ahead and make the choices. There are rebels in the streets, but they too will formulate laws, they too will need to streamline their agitations, they will have to be inclusive. This too is ‘herdism’, and that goes against the perception of being completely free.
Freedom of choice is individualism's sidekick. A true individualist Does, without thinking of it as a choice.
(c) Farzana Versey
0 comments:
Post a Comment