Theatre of the Absurd

Preet Mohan Singh Ahluwalia

A play called Behzti (Dishonor) was cancelled by Birmingham Repertory Theatre after a “violent” protest by Sikhs in London. On December 18, 2004 a crowd of Sikh men and women was protesting before the theatre its showing of the play, which is in part offensive to the Sikhs, when a handful of protesters broke a glass door and a window. Although most protesters were peaceful, and had been so for days before this incident occurred, the propaganda mill took no time in labeling the protest as violent and the protesters as thugs. According to BBC, West Midlands police arrested four people (out of a few hundred); three were bailed pending further inquiries and the fourth was cautioned.

The reasons for protest were scenes of rape inside a Gurdwara. While Bhatti was quoted as saying that Behzti reflects her personal experience, some newspapers called it fiction. The latter being the truth. Rape and murder are serious offenses and should be reported to the police whenever it occurs, and no Sikh organization condones it.

The Sikh objection was on Bhatti’s insistence to set the scene inside a Gurdwara, and her using the cover of freedom of expression to justify this choice. At no time did Bhatti or the theatre feel obligated to inform the public why it was necessary to offend a community when the play’s moral message could have been successfully put across with a minor change to the script. Is intellectual and artistic integrity beyond the purview of ethical behavior?

In the January 13 edition of the Guardian, Bhatti was quoted as saying, "I feel that the choice of setting was crucial and valid for the story I wanted to tell and, in my view, the production was respectful to Sikhism”, thus evading a direct response to why the choice of the setting was crucial if she sincerely believes that her work is “rooted in honesty and passion”.

Before the play went on stage, Bhatti was in consultation with Sikhs on some of the objections that were raised. If honesty is what guides her, she should have been forthcoming in explaining why those choices were made, when it had become increasingly clear that her choice of setting rape inside a Gurdwara would be considered offensive.

Like Bhatti many people admire writers who are fearless, and activists who dedicate their lives speaking against injustice. She rightly acknowledges, “Truth is everything in Sikhism, the truth of action, the truth of an individual, God's truth. The heritage of the Sikh people is one of courage and victory over adversity. Our leaders were brave revolutionaries with the finest minds, warriors who propagated values of egalitarianism and selflessness”.

Referring to how people have drifted away from the true values that once guided us, she continues, “I feel that distortion in practice must be confronted and our great ideals must be restored”. And if hypocrisy has crept into Sikh society, could it not be addressed in a non-threatening way. I cannot fault Bhatti for highlighting some of our failings, but I am at loss to understand her compulsion to offend when she had other options available to her.

Salil Tripathi expressed his anguish at the closure of the play in the International Herald Tribune and assured us that, “[liberals] want to respect [emphasis mine] the sensitivities of the devout and of the minorities, and they want freedom of expression for the artist.” Describing the notorious scene, when a man who has homosexual relationship with the victims father takes her to the Gurdwara and rapes her, Tripathi talks about the fallibility of human nature and asks a question: What if such people are not perfect? He further insisted, “But by raising these issues, some Sikhs believe Bhatti brought dishonor to her community.”

Tripathi should know that Sikhs had no objection to the contents of the play as reported to BBC by Mohan Singh: “We are not bothered about rape scenes or pedophiles - we know that there are good and bad people from every background and religion.” Still Bhatti told Jack Malvern, the Arts reporter for the Times, that Sikhs are sweeping these issues under the carpet. Apparently she is not even listening? Freedom of expression that Tripathi passionately seeks will not be gained through disrespect and deliberate disregard of values that are important to people.

Reacting to the protest Nicholas Hytner, artistic director of the National Theatre insisted that, “The causing of offense is part of our business”. People who provoke and cause offense knowingly share the blame with those who react, sometimes violently, as a result of the provocation. Why is the provocateur not held accountable and the provoked chastised? The Behzti affair brings to light a conflict that has not been greatly acknowledged. Are we free to express our views in any way or form, and is disrespect at the very core of liberal thinking?

The media promoted Gurpreet Bhatti as a Sikh playwright. It was done to render credibility to her, and the message she was putting across through her play. Any criticism of Bhatti would now appear inappropriate because Bhatti is a Sikh. Whether Bhatti sincerely wanted to help the community by highlighting problems it faces is arguable, yet, it is fair to ask, how did she expect Sikhs to reflect on social ills by first insisting on offending them. Playwrights, artists, and writers cannot claim to be working in the best interest of a community unless they are truthful about their intentions.

A good case in point is that of Kiran Kaur Chandhok whose article Fake Hair For Stupid Sardarnis was published in the December 2004 issue of an Indian women’s magazine called Femina. If Chandhok claims to be a Sikh she must know that kesh (unshorn hair) is an article of faith that every Sikh is required to wear. To be a Sikh is to keep kesh; it is that simple. People are free to make choices; however, they have no right to represent a community in the media, heavily burdened with their own prejudices against the traditions of people they claim to be representing. As a result of this offensive slur the editor of Femina, Satya Saran expressed an apology:

“There was no intention to hurt the sentiments of the Sikh community... nor to incite any member of the Sikh community to act against the tenets of their religion. It, however, appears that the sentiments of members of the Sikh community have been hurt by the article and hence (we) offer our sincere apologies to them.”

We are told that Bhatti has received death threats, and it being a matter of great concern the British police should investigate these accusations. Is the identity of the people threatening Bhatti known or are they anonymous. British Sikhs have publicly denounced any physical intimidation to the writer, and a statement issued by the British Sikh Consultative Forum (BSCF) clarifies that threats against Bhatti “have no endorsement from the Sikh community.” Yet people have mistakenly drawn a parallel with the fatwa issued to Salman Rushdie. A fatwa is a religious edict and no person is empowered to issue a fatwa like edict in Sikhism, because Sikhs do not recognize a distinct class of clergy.

Freedom of Speech

In a democratic society people's right to know is an acknowledged principle. It is for this reason that the right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed. Freedom of speech is based on the fundamental belief that speech should not be restricted. It does not guarantee the right to offend. When CBS terminated the services of four senior executives for their report on President Bush’s work record with the National Guard, newspaper editors did not defend these executives by invoking their right to free speech.

False information is justifiably offensive, and that is the way it should be. A work of fiction has its limits. Journalists, artists, and playwrights must ensure that sensitive material is factual before it is portrayed as art or published in the news media. This is commonsense. Creative impulse can be non-threatening; it can also be fraudulent and deceptive.

Freedom of speech is an important and a necessary right that is available to all citizens in a democracy, and every effort must be made to ensure that it stays this way. What we witness today is an effort to put limits on free speech as a consequence of its abuse by some of its proponents. This potential for abuse exists and hence the need for defamation laws, hate laws, etc. In art or during a street protest it is crucial that people behave in a way to strengthen the case for free speech.

When Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform at a costume party there was a storm of protest from around the world. The media led the pack in its outrage against Harry’s choice, which was highly offensive to the Jewish people, and the victims and families of those who had died in the holocaust. Although Harry publicly apologized saying, “It was a poor choice of costume and I apologize,” the British Press did not relent. The Daily Mail demanded Harry to “Come out and say sorry properly!,” the Daily Star called him “The Fool in the Crown”, and the Times disregarded his apology as “feeble.”

Even Guardian, which had published on its pages many opinions supporting Bhatti’s right to freedom of speech and expression, did not approve of the Prince’s free choice of a costume and sadly lamented, “This young man could one day be our king. That is a sobering thought to many, if not yet to Prince Harry himself” (as reported by CNN).

The outrage against Harry's choice is justified because a Nazi uniform is offensive not only to the Jewish people but to every community that has been victimized by an unjust State like the Jewish people under Adolf Hitler. If we were to use the same arguments as some of Bhatti’s supporters, are we to believe that in this case all people and the media acted as hypocrites by protesting. I believe not.

Not once were Germans or Germany criticized by the protestors who had learned to dissociate the nation from the Nazis. In trying to promote a play that falsely implicates a religion and all its members for the misdeeds of a few is despicable and dishonest. Still Bhatti insists that her play was respectful of Sikhism, its ideals, and teachings.

After the appalling spectacle of death left in the wake of tsunami in the Indian Ocean, in an attempt to not appear insensitive and offensive Dell Computers, Pepsi, British Airways, and American Express (AmEx) pulled off air commercials that show beach scenes, and in the case of AmEx, a champion surfer Laird Hamilton riding a giant wave. Responsible and non-offensive coverage of events, issues, and news stories is more effective and most often has the intended effect on the audience. Gestures like this go a long way.

Jimmy's World

Washington Post of September 28, 1980 published a story under the headline Jimmy’s World. The reporter of this heart-rending story was a young black woman named Janet Cooke, who described Jimmy as an “8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict, a precocious little [black] boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby smooth skin of his thin brown arms."

Jimmy, Cooke told her readers, had been an addict since the age of 5 and lived with his drug addict mother in a poor Washington neighborhood. The mother had been raped many times by her boyfriend and Jimmy’s birth was the result of one such incident. In detail Cooke described the house where Jimmy lived and quoted the boy, his mom, and her lover. The circumstances of the story were compelling, and the reality it portrayed extremely poignant that offers for help started pouring in. When asked to reveal details about Jimmy and his family, both the Post and Cooke refused citing First Amendment right of the journalist to protect its sources. Six months later, Cooke won the Pulitzer Prize.

Forty-eight hours after the award, on its front page Washington Post published an announcement: “The Pulitzer Prize Committee withdrew its feature-writing prize from Washington Post reporter Janet Cooke yesterday after she admitted that her award-winning story was a fabrication.” Cooke had never met and interviewed any people in the story. Benjamin Bradlee, who was the executive editor of Washington Post at the time, described Janet Cooke as a pathological liar, and the New York Times insisted that “the fabricated event, the made-up quote, the fictitious source,” had dishonored the fine traditions of democracy and honest communication.

On the publicity poster for Behzti, Birmingham Rep announced the play as, “A new black comedy that reveals just how many secrets can be hidden (emphasis mine) in a Sikh temple.” The play’s promoters including Gurpreet Bhatti, wish to impress upon the audience that rapes are a common occurrence in a Sikh temple, and it is just one of the unknown secrets. Rape is a serious offense and Bhatti should tell us how many women she knows have been raped inside a Gurdwara. Or is Behzti, Bhatti’s own story told through the play’s heroine.

Lines between fact and fiction are slowing becoming blurry, and some clever writers and journalists have decided to exploit this phenomenon. What could be more painful than a story of a weak and helpless woman physically and sexually abused by a powerful man? Fiction is narrated to suit expectations of the audience; tell people what they want to hear. A box office runaway success can catapult the writer into greater stardom that includes multimillion-dollar contracts, television appearances, and a lifestyle personified by Hollywood celebrities.

Criticism is welcome where justified; false criticism for the purpose of seeking publicity at the expense of another person or a community is out rightly disgusting. We are told that secularism holds the future for mankind, and secularism as defined by many of its protagonists is an alternative ideology to religion. Secularists overwhelmingly criticize religious beliefs and traditions and, as expected, the Behzti saga unleashed a barrage of secularist propaganda against Sikhism. Judging by what was published it soon became apparent that most people had little or no knowledge about the Sikh faith, and its secular foundations conspicuously apparent by its unflinching rejection of forced proseltyzation and acceptance of all people as one race regardless of religious, ethnic, national or gender differences.

Art can educate people if playwrights and artists follow a strict code of conduct. Intellectual dishonesty, moral corruption, well contrived plots intentionally abusive of another person’s culture and traditions exemplify a work that is unethical, false, and socially meaningless. And dramatists who are manipulative are guilty of reckless negligence of the social responsibility and the power they enjoy as writers.

Copyright ©2005 Preet Mohan Singh Ahluwalia.   About The Author