The intention of political
cartoon is to ridicule, insight as caricature, generally to lighten the situation
but not reduce the gravity of the matter. They can be offensive, indeed in the context of things they are meant to be offensive, to eviscerate power and entrenched
systems. It is freedom of expression that is lynchpin of democratic civilized society.
It is expression of freedom and liberty. Vulgar and crude can also be
expression, so is what is considered as blasphemous by few. Nothing can be
banned. What restrains is collective awareness as also aesthetics. An evolved
society will self-edit or else it is ignored by aware population and will not sync with collective sensibilities.
The controversy regarding cartoon
of Indian prime minister as snake charmer titled 'sneaky slightly annoying man' in mainstream Norwegian newspaper is
interesting. I studied it quite closely. The stereotype of Indian snake charmer
(or rope trick) is quite dated cliché, a 19th century colonial british creation -though
not out of context, when we were children, these were quite common in north India.
It doesn’t exist now. It seems to continue to exist in western mind. Also, Mr. Modi’s
skin is darkened to easily match the Indian stereotype in western mind. Offensive
yes but necessarily an expression of political cartoon that should have its place. There though is the issue of asymmetry of power which is meant to belittle the other, mystify the other as exotic so that they are reduced to dehumanized stereotype. It is not meant
to give insight or humor but belittle, a stereotype of condescending western gaze.
Not that Indians are enlightened or carry heightened aesthetic sensibilities,
indeed worse than these are normalized in this part of the world, most significantly
in everyday cringe of mainstream entertainment. However western gaze,
essentially white western stereotype of other, is embedded in feudal structures and neo-colonial systems that overwhelm and undermine democracy. Anachronistic reverence for feudal institutions nurture
mindset of ascriptive delusions. It evaluates and infantilize the other as
continuation of historical typecast (dark “sneaky”~“thug” – you see the pattern),
incapacitated to have any agency or self awareness, and categorized as it suits and
asserted with asymmetry of power. A society claiming to be civilized should’ve self-censored any hint of racism or worked something better but equally offensive! (I am for offensive…institutions
of power should be ridiculed). Historical wrong cannot be evaluated from contemporary
context, we don’t live in the same world. But if references seek to revive or
replicate horrors of past then it must be objected. More than people it is feudal
institutions and entrenched systems that need to be eviscerated. More entrenched the idea or institution more is the need for blasphemy.
