I
haven't watched Vishwaroopam yet, since I live in Bombay and I cannot bring
myself to watch a Kamal Hassan movie in Hindi. In the light of recent events
though, I have decided to voice the rather contrary-to-public opinion I have in
the matter.
Most forward
thinking, liberal minded friends of mine feel very strongly about freedom of
speech, and find the ban on this movie in Tamil Nadu or Satanic verses in India
unacceptable. I understand their perspective; I hope they do mine.
I know
that many of you intelligent people reading this might associate the ban of a
movie or a book with us moving towards an Orwellian state. To the uninitiated,
1984 is a book by the English author George Orwell in which he describes the
existence of a society that is controlled and manipulated by the State
entirely. The Orwellian state has come to refer to a form of governance that
systematically challenges freedom of speech and denies it's people's right to
(any form of) intellect through manipulation of the truth.
I
see your fear, I raise you mine.
When
Asaram Bapu made the following comment on the rape victim, "She should
have called them brothers and begged them to stop" [1], I was aghast at
how a person can make such a statement. I was horrified, and indignant. I could
throw up over his words, his insensitive remarks, and the hurt he caused
thousands of rape victims. One person's freedom of speech might be another
person's death note.
I must
pause to clarify. I am not trying to compare apples and oranges. I have a cause
here. I need to establish a firm case where we see the need to define what "freedom
of speech" is. When someone puts Lord Ganesha's pictures on a toilet seat,
is that not their freedom of expression? Why is it that it is okay, then, for
thousands of protesters to overthrow the company's right to print
whatever they want on their products?
It
becomes all the more significant when the person/medium making a statement or
depicting an idea is influential. A movie or a book or a famous person has a
reputation that can affect the way people think and act. To that effect, with
power does come responsibility.
Let's
be open-minded.
We, as
a country, over the centuries, have seen thousands of innocent lives being
taken in religious conflicts. The soil we tread upon is still wet in parts,
over the blood we have spilt over hurting religious sentiments, attacking
places of worship, and assassinating political and religious
leaders.
I must digress a
bit. "The rapid growth of India's mining industry in the mineral-rich
states has escalated the Maoist insurgent movement. To effectively address this security threat, India must also address,
through mining and environmental regulation, the grievances caused by the
exploitation of tribal and lower-caste locals in mining areas who serve as the
insurgency's base." [2]
What I
learn from insurgency and the way it works is this fundamental concept. You
cannot have a section of your people feeling antagonized/exploited/hurt and
expect them not to retaliate. Their retaliation is often unjust, illegal, and
downright inhuman. It has to be curbed. Killing of innocent lives is crime
against humanity, and cannot be justified in any manner.
But
this happens and I'd be a fool and a murderer to ignore it.
I am
twenty two years old now. I hope to be able to live in India when it is free
from hypocrisy. When people can say whatever they want, and nobody's
feelings are hurt as a result. And if somebody does find something someone said
or portrayed objectionable, they have a peaceful way of protesting without
killing my kids on their way to school.
Trust
me when I say I join you in that dream. But until then, while I cannot ensure
that people retaliate to their feelings of religion, sex or tribe being hurt in
a peaceful and calm manner, I can only see sense in not hurting people's sentiments
in the name of freedom of expression.
Clarification: I am NOT advocating that the Government should take a weak stand every time some issue comes up where some group of people might have their sentiments hurt. In fact, there are times the Government ought to take a strong stand, to send out a message that it is Wrong to resort to violent means to express your disapproval over something being said or shown.
My only point is that there ARE circumstances when a Government can take a call to ban something because it will create a law and order problem so fierce and widespread that the police forces cannot contain it, and innocent people might be killed/hurt in the process.
[1] http://www.indianexpress.com/news/asaram-bapu-holds-girl-responsible-for-delhi-gangrape-says-spare-the-rapists-slams-media/1055639/
[2] http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/mining-and-the-maoists/
