Sociologist, author and cultural curator, Shafinaaz Hassim, declined an invitation to attend a diplomatic luncheon hosted by the Indian Deputy High Commission.
Her decision was based on a deep concern over rising Islamophobia in India and the Indian government’s position on Gaza. For her, participation would have meant silence in the face of suffering, and silence is never passive.
Public platforms carry meaning beyond their surface intent. Cultural invitations, especially those extended by state institutions, are never neutral. In times marked by political violence, discrimination and humanitarian crises, presence can be interpreted as approval.
Hassim explains that once a person commits to principles of social justice, decisions like these become unavoidable. Cultural celebration cannot be separated from political context. When state power is implicated in exclusion or violence, artistic and intellectual spaces cannot pretend neutrality. As she notes, “Once you have a position on social justice, it’s easy to just follow through with that.”
SMread: SA malnutrition crisis hidden in plain sight
Art and accountability
Art consistently reflects the conditions in which it is produced. Hassim challenges the idea that artists can disengage when injustice is visible. Cultural spaces that avoid naming harm then risk becoming instruments of erasure. Attending without critique would have meant endorsing a carefully curated silence.
Her refusal was not rooted in hostility toward culture, heritage or dialogue. It was a rejection of spaces that prioritise comfort over truth. “I cannot endorse that. I cannot sit in a crowd where they’re not able to call out these injustices,” she says. For Hassim, conscience must outweigh courtesy.
SMread: SAHPRA flags unsafe children’s supplements
Refusal as responsibility
Critics often dismiss refusal and boycott as symbolic gestures. Hassim sees them differently. Choosing not to attend interrupts the appearance of consensus. It challenges the idea that celebration can proceed while violence remains unacknowledged. Refusal becomes a form of participation, one that resists normalising injustice.
She also addresses arguments that deflect criticism by pointing to wrongdoing elsewhere. Holding one government accountable does not excuse another. Democracies rely on critique to remain ethical. Suppressing dissent under the guise of unity weakens moral credibility. “Critical engagement and expression should be acceptable,” she reminds us.
The stance taken by Hassim invites broader reflection. Artists, writers and institutions must ask what their presence affirms and whose pain is rendered invisible. In moments shaped by oppression, silence is not empty. It carries weight. And sometimes, the most meaningful statement is the choice not to sit at the table.
To hear more from here, watch the interview below:
Image credit: The Citizen
