AS a cellist, it is really hard for me to fathom why attachment to one’s political allegiance has become a vital criterion for musicians to retain his/her jobs or performing engagements, just because they are Russians.

But to some cultural institutions and establishments, it seems perfectly fine to do just that.

One of the most celebrated Russian conductors, Valery Gergiev, has recently been dropped by his management for failing to publicly denounce Vladimir Putin and repent over his close ties to the Russian president within the given timeframe.

Carnegie Hall replaced Gergiev who was set to start a three-concert run with the Vienna Philharmonic along with another conductor one day before the concert day. Gone along with him was the first concert, an all-Rachmaninoff programme, and a Russian pianist Denis Matsuev.

In the same tune, the Dublin Piano Competition this year has decided to reject the participation of all Russian candidates. In Canada, the Orchestre Symphonique de Montréal cancelled its upcoming engagements with Russian pianist Alexander Malofeev, quoting in a statement that it is “inappropriate” to receive the musician as “the context” at the moment does not allow.

Sadly, the same pianist was also removed from a second recital engagement with the Vancouver Recital Society, which was due to take place in August.

The message is clear. If you are a Russian, keeping silent and your thoughts to yourself is not an option, and denouncing the war will not suffice. Russian musicians must criticise Putin by name or face punishment.

Even performing Russian works is politically incorrect. The fact that these musicians have no role to play in causing the war does not matter. Nor does the fact that compelled speech is not free speech, and that free speech and freedom to associate are both fundamental human rights enshrined by the universal declaration of human rights.

What matters, apparently, is one’s nationality, one’s willingness to offer self-congratulatory grand gestures in the name of solidarity with the oppressed, and the “context” that allows or disallows the exercise of one’s basic human rights.

But who exactly gets to define the “context” that all of us are living in? Is this not the same context that illegal invasions in Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq had or have been perpetrated by the United States, the United Kingdom and some other Nato states?

Should the same context be the reason to ban musicians from the United States, the United Kingdom and their allies from participating in performances or retaining their positions should they not publicly denounce such political leaders as George Bush, Obama and Tony Blair?

Should the artists from these states be de-platformed and their works cancelled or banned until the context changes? Obviously not. It would be ridiculous to have done so.

Imposing political prohibitions on art, literature and artists and compelled speech is dangerous. To do so onto people based on arbitrary categories such as nationality or ethnicity will bring more injustice.

Individuals are no longer judged by the content of his or her character, but the group that he or she is assigned to.

When Tchaikovsky’s works are banned, it does not matter that the great composer himself was a victim of homophobia oppressed by his own community, or when Shostakovich’s works are cancelled, it matters little that his works are masterful displays of how a composer can fight oppression while tailoring his compositions to Stalin’s restrictions through the use of musical sarcasm.

By extending Putin’s guilt to the entire Russian community, we have effectively cancelled individualities and the content of the character of the Russian people and reduced them to ambiguous collective stereotypes via simplistic dichotomy.

As for the danger of compelled speech and allegiance, one only needs to look at the Cultural Revolution that happened in China where one could only publicly express thoughts approved and endorsed by Mao Zedong or risk being attacked by the Red Guards.

Conflicts cannot be resolved by controlling speech. Condoning such an act could escalate the situation violently.

Other kinds of response should be attempted, especially when it had been attempted successfully before, the West-Eastern Divan workshop campaign conceptualised and initiated by two of the greatest intellectuals and musicians of our time, Edward Said and Daniel Barenboim, is one of the finest examples.

The West-Eastern Divan workshop has successfully shown the world that through music, diversity and difference could co-exist despite constant widespread beliefs in nation-states and nationalisms that have been contributing to the conflict between the Israelis and Arabs.

And that through music, physical and emotional barriers can be overcome. Musicians’ common affection for European classical music has become a viable bond that brought them together and facilitated their collaboration despite differences.

Said talked with the young musicians on very important subjects such as conflicts, wars and the world of culture. Subjects that are emotionally and intellectually hard to talk about.

But what struck Said in the workshop the most, is that the moment these musicians played, under the baton of Daniel Barenboim, their personal histories and identities subsided into irrelevance. What became relevant was their musical interactions with the conductor and each other.

Evidently, music performance and concert halls, when used with wisdom, can open up opportunities for people to sort out differences and find ways to hold dialogues, resolve conflicts, or even coexist.

Edward Said passed away in 2003, but the Divan Western-Eastern orchestra continues to flourish until today. It is his wisdom and spirit in seeking reconciliation through music that I hope could find its way into the world divided by the war in Ukraine.

It is his resilience in seeking for opportunities for dialogue and conflict resolution that we should emulate, rather than seeking after cancellation, de-platforming and compelled allegiance. – April 4, 2022.

* Chan Yit Fei is a founding member of Agora Society. He is a cellist and educator by profession, and a biotechnologist by training. He writes to learn and to think, and most importantly, to force himself to finish reading books that would otherwise not see much of the light of day.