It's the potency of the universal language of images and its ability to communicate directly that has always been seen as a threat and put under strict scrutiny by dictatorial regimes and extremists.

The state tries to impose censorship from the outside through different mechanisms while each society develops a more organic form of censorship and the artist learns to subconsciously edit taboo imagery. One such example is the depiction of religious images which are acceptable in Iran but consider a blasphemy in other parts of the Islamic world.

State censorship policies are either dictated by morality or ideology, or both. Moral limits can vary from culture to culture and are mostly determined by established norms. This can also vary within a country, between the more traditional rural population as compared to sophisticated and liberal urban dwellers.

Ideology often has a political agenda and is enforced through coercive strategies via legislation and policy. Hitler had Modern Art declared decadent and banned it from museums which compelled many Modernists to migrate under threat. The famous Bauhaus Academy too had its share of problems when it resisted changes in the curricula under the Third Reich and had to shift its location several times.

Artists in Pakistan too have felt the heat of State disapproval and sometimes public pressure since 1947. Sadequain and Colin David's work was vandalised in Lahore for its figurative content at a time when General Ziaul Haq's drive of Islamisation had emboldened extremist elements in society to flex their muscles against artists and dancers. Virtuoso Kathak dancer Nahid Siddiqi was forced into exile by widespread state intolerance towards dance in the 1980s in much the same way M F Hussain no longer feels safe living in Mumbai.

The 1970s saw Modernism come into its own with figurative painters like Shakir Ali, Bashir Mirza, Colin David, Jamil Naqsh and Sadequain at the zenith of their careers with the liberal state patronage of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's government. So when the ban started in the 1980's on figures, their art was excluded from national shows as many of them refused to abide by the more conservative edits of the non-democratic ruler. The resistance also turned the tide to a more subversive content as seen among others in the work of Nagori that critiqued the role of the army in post-ZAB era. During the Zia era he was banned from holding exhibitions in Islamabad.

The 1990s saw the re-emergence of the figure in full force but after 2000 a new generation of artists are depicting sexuality through association and suggestion. This is done with different forms taking on the physical characteristics of genitalia. Because of an obscure and abstract representation it often escapes closer scrutiny despite provocation content.

Hard hitting political satire dominates cartoons in the dailies and the electronic media and is often taken in good spirit until the recent Shanakht festival where the entire event was closed down and the artist and organiser threatened with dire consequences.

It's important to look deeper into the cause behind such an extreme reaction. Why did this particular work, cause such an outrage while other more scathing satire has been accepted?

The offending image by a UK-based artist of Pakistani origin, Nilofer Akmut was a photo collage based on a family photograph whose faces had been altered into those of politicians like Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, Yahya Khan, Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq , ZAB and Benazir Bhutto. Reports say that it was the proximity between Ziaul Haq and late Benazir Bhutto that incensed the protestors who not only seized the work but also destroyed parts of the exhibition and festival.

This work arrived in response to an open call to artists to submit an art work as a 'Gift to Pakistan' which was displayed in an exhibition at the venue of the festival.

While everyone felt strongly about the way the Festival was interrupted, there have been different responses since censorship is more stringently enforced in the public space, the audience in democracies has a big role to play in determining the boundaries of freedom of expression.

One group feels that the Shanakht festival that was supposed to be inclusive should have taken the ultra-sensitivities of the large number of visitors into consideration. Others feel strongly that right of freedom of expression should remain paramount. Many feel the group that carried out the violence should have shown more tolerance in keeping with the spirit of their own leader's respect for artists. She looked upon them as friends and made the rare appointment of Bashir Mirza as Pakistan's Cultural Attaché to Australia where during his tenure he painted the Nuke series. Dictated by his conscience he painted the series when his host country supported the tests in the Pacific Ocean. This may have been in violation of diplomatic code but he felt the urgency to listen to his creative voice.

 
In a society that has been brutalised and compelled to grab their rights through street muscle, perhaps it's too much to expect a simple request to take off the offending work.

Besides pressurising the Arts Council to provide more security at exhibitions and working out a mechanism of registering citizens' protest, there should also be a greater effort from the art community to hold regular public shows to increase exposure to art.

This incident can also be taken as an opportunity to rethink the artist's relationship with the man on the street. Since most artists' exhibit only in the white cube of the gallery the limited interface with the public has prevented them from listening to each others voice first hand and responding with sensitivity. An increase in exhibitions in the public space will not only lead to the democratisation of the cultural space but also help the audience and artist to negotiate the boundaries of freedom of expression together.