Herald, 8 January 2008
Freedom of expression is frequently coming under threat from self-proclaimed defenders of religion, says VIDYADHAR GADGIL
Some months ago, in the wake of the controversy over the artworks of Ganesha by artist Subodh Kerkar, the Sunaparanta Goa Centre for the Arts had organized a panel discussion on the subject of ‘artistic freedom’. The panelists, as well as the audience which participated in the discussion, provided many important insights on a whole range of issues related to art and freedom of expression. One of the views expressed was that artists need to exercise self-restraint when dealing with social and political issues and particularly with religious matters. While many of the participants broadly agreed with this viewpoint, it was also pointed out that if we say that artists should exercise ‘self-restraint’, the next step is to define boundaries for them, which is not self-restraint but censorship. Artists must be free to reflect society in whatever terms they deem fit, and it is for them to decide for themselves what boundaries they should accept.
This is a hoary debate in which there are no easy answers. The maximalist position of complete freedom of expression is probably the one that makes the most sense, but nowhere in the world is the right to freedom of expression absolute. There are usually restrictions of public order and morality which are imposed by law.
While reasonable legal restrictions are acceptable, in India we are now seeing a situation where the mob decides what is acceptable and then imposes its views on a compliant administration. While this was avoided in the Subodh Kerkar case, we see this with regard to the controversial CD produced by Calvert Gonsalves. The CD allegedly contains objectionable references to a priest and a politician, neither of whom have been named. If particular priests and politicians feel that the contents of the CD apply to them and are defamatory, they are free to take legal recourse under the law.
But that is not what happened. By some feat of legerdemain, criticism of a priest was projected as being criticism of a particular religion. As a result, there was a law and order problem in Colva, and there was considerable pressure on the administration to ban the CD under Section 153 of the IPC, which deals with creating communal disharmony. To their discredit, the police and the government succumbed to the pressure and engaged in ham-handed efforts to ban the CD and even muzzle the press from reporting on the matter.
The observations of Justice P V Kamat of the Additional Sessions Court, while granting anticipatory bail to Calvert Gonsalves and Osvy Viegas, are instructive. He refused to accept the contention that there would be further law and order problems as a result of granting bail, and ruled, “The courts cannot be swayed by public sentiments, emotions or pressure tactics and of threats to agitate and to take the law in their hands. While dealing with the matter, the court of law has to look into the facts presented before it and to see whether ingredients of particular sections are attracted or not.”
In this case, the judge has laid down clear principles, which, while not directly related to the freedom of expression, lay down important principles to preserve it. If action has to be taken against a particular artistic work, this has to be on the merits of the case in law, and not as a result of public pressure. This is particularly important where ‘sentiments’, particularly religious ones, have become so fragile that people are ready to take offence very easily and resort to agitation in an attempt to suppress freedom of expression. Be it Hindutva forces or other political forces who want to pursue their own agendas under the guise of ‘religious sentiment’, the problem is ubiquitous.
Apart from religion, ‘defending the community’ has been another common refrain. Offence has been taken over the most innocuous references to communities and religions. To take some recent examples related to Bollywood, there was an agitation over a song in Madhuri Dixit’s comeback vehicle Aaja Nachle, which contained the line ‘Mochi chala banne sonar’ (cobbler sets out to become a goldsmith), interpreted by some as derogatory to Dalits. Over this issue, the UP and Punjab governments actually ended up banning the film. Then, in the case of the film Billoo Barber, the barber community agitated, forcing the film-makers to delete the ‘Barber’ bit from the title. With respect to Vishal Bharadwaj’s Kaminey, there was a furore over the line ‘Apna hath Jagannath’, which appears in a shot in the film written on the door of a toilet, and the line ‘Kahan Raja Bhoj, Kahan Gangu Teli’. Over the former, there were objections that the line denigrated Lord Jagannath, and the latter line was seen as insulting the Teli community. In the most recent such incident, the use of the word ‘Bombay’ in the film ‘Wake Up Sid’ attracted the ire of the Thackerays, as being insulting to the Marathi manoos.
Bollywood’s response has been uniformly craven in almost all these cases, with the offending songs and lines being removed from the concerned films, and the film-makers offering abject apologies to the self-appointed defenders of community and religious pride. While big bucks ride on Bollywood products, film-makers should take a lesson from Aamir Khan’s Fanaa, which, despite attracting the anger of Narendra Modi’s storm troopers and being prevented from being screened in Gujarat, went on to become a super-hit. Audiences are intelligent and discerning and can make up their own minds, and by folding up so easily Bollywood film-makers do themselves and other artists a grave disservice.
Another ludicrous instance has been the campaign mounted against Mumbai-based author Murzban Shroff, author of the short-story collection Breathless in Bombay, which has been nominated for the Pushcart Prize, the highest award for short stories in the United States. A criminal case was filed against the author for the use of the word ‘ghaati’ in the book. Similarly a complaint has been filed against the author for obscenity, stemming from the use of the phrases ‘moan and groan’ and ‘their tenderness gave way to a torrid lovemaking in the dark’.
Fortunately, two days ago the Mumbai High Court struck a blow for artistic freedom. A three-judge bench of the Court held that criticism of any religion is permissible under the fundamental right to freedom of speech and that a book cannot be banned on those grounds alone. Though it banned the book involved in the case since it had a “malicious intention”, it further held that “everything is open to criticism and religion is no exception. Freedom of expression covers criticism of religion and no person can be sensitive about it.” This judgement has laid down important guidelines which address many of the issues raised with regard to art and freedom of expression. It has upheld freedom of expression, while recognizing certain boundaries.
As for self-restraint being exercised by artists, in India the shoe is very much on the other foot – it is the self-proclaimed defenders of religion and community feelings, rather than artists, who need to exercise self-restraint.
I love your article. It is more important to respect the dignity of another human being than to respect an ideology or belief. True religion, if there is any such thing, is love and respect for all, not killing others or taking away their freedom because they have a different point of view.