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/
7 comments:
a) The side-effect of your policy is that it legitimises and reinforces the idea that some community or the other can/should feel offended by whatever. The logic of precedence isn't limited to courts, it's basic psychology.
b) Hey, our Censor Board is famously wimpish. And they were ok. Neither of us has seen it. neither have practically any of the people talking about it. I think guilty until proven innocent is a VERY bad idea for this sort of thing.
c) You should totally use this blog profile pic on facebook :).
We live in India and everybody (even most of the so called liberals) understand that religious sentiments and feelings run high here and so statements / movies that offend groups will result in some sort of adverse reaction.
What really worries me is the government's reaction to threats by such religious groups. While there will always be law and order concerns, the government needs to avoid buckling at the first sign of opposition. After all, they seem to handle public decent against their policies pretty well. Surely, they can do the same against any violent reactions by the "offended" groups.
The core question is to understand what level of offense is excessive and deserves a ban. And this cannot work by banning every work that is remotely controversial and then wait for a court approval before opening it. Courts in such incidents must only be used in the rarest of rare cases.
Freedom comes at a price and it about time we pay the next installment.
(Nikhil George) Punnoose!
a) Disagreed. b) Agreed.
c) I compose a 680-word passionate post on religion, violence, rape and Orwellian society. And the only half-decent compliment I get is for my picture. :D
Pi,
Firstly, why Pi?
"The core question is to understand what level of offense is excessive and deserves a ban."
I completely agree.
My main objective was to drive home the fact that in some cases, we are so swayed by public opinion that we don't stop to realize the hypocrisy that creeps into defining terms such as "freedom of thought and expression".
Something to chew on: dialogue from "A man for all seasons" (slightly different versions in the play and movie)
http://www.radix.net/~bbrown/amfas.html or https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons_%281966_film%29
Alice More: Arrest him!
More: Why, what has he done?
Margaret More: He's bad!
More: There is no law against that.
Will Roper: There is! God's law!
More: Then God can arrest him.
Alice: While you talk, he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast– man's laws, not God's– and if you cut them down—and you're just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
@c, that's because I already considered this question in, like, a tenth of the space :P : http://ramblingperfectionist.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/things-i-dont-get/.
What, blanket disagreement on a)? You don't think it's even worth considering?
Honestly, I'm quite a big free speech proponent. For me, an ideal State is a completely liberal one, where there is no forced restraint on one's fundamental rights.
But I agree with your post because in a sense, the law of the land agrees with it. Although Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India grants every citizen the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, there are reasonable restrictions placed on such right. Article 19(2) provides that such right cannot be claimed when your speeech "shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence"
So well, since this issue did pose a security threat, there is nothing illegal about the ban. As you've very well conveyed through your post, we are a democracy and sadly every idiot's view has to be respected in order to prevent anarchy. So, we adjust for the society's well-being. It's like I hate the fact that women are exploited in India merely on sartorial considerations, but I'd never ever recommend any girl to go out at night - alone, in non-Indian clothing - in a desolate location. That's not because I condone the attitude of the men, but because I'd want to prevent them from unleashing their abhorrent barbarianism which neither she nor I can stop. It's more of a prevention rather than cure approach for the general good.
And in the end, all it is just a movie - the internet is at your disposal - if you're that rebellious, I'm sure there are ways in which you could watch a fine print ;)
For me, this is a trivial issue. The fine line of free speech violation was crossed during the Thackeray death arrests. That, according to me, was an unfathomable violation of one's most natural and inalienable rights. That deserves all the hue and cry, not a silly movie (which is quite horrible in any case!).
Post a Comment