Can Indians ever learn to stop feeling slighted?
Offence is our historical burden, an inherited right, which governments have protected and encouraged
Film director Madhur Bhandarkar, known for his ‘thesis films’ on subjects he usually expends his moral outrage on , is asserting his freedom of expression. He even tweeted to Rahul Gandhi. Rightly so. A few days ago, members of the Congress party, otherwise shockingly inarticulate as members of the Opposition, stalled a publicity event planned for Bhandarkar’s forthcoming film Indu Sarkar in Pune.
Offence is our historical burden, an inherited right, which constitutionally elected governments over 70 years have protected and encouraged. It does not matter which political party we belong to or which side of the ideological axis we tilt towards. We want to protect legacies, no matter how flawed; let there be no new prism or filter through which we look at heroes, they should be invincible. Non-Indians can’t write about our heroes or religion or poverty. So, how dare Wendy Doniger write about Hindus, even though she is the world’s most prolific Sanskrit scholar, how could a Muslim artist paint goddess Saraswati nude, and how could Mira Nair, a woman of Indian origin, make a film called Kama Sutra? How could women be sexual? Usually, these are political battles – one party’s moral one-up- manship over the other.
HT reported on a heartening development in the fight against censorship, specifically against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). Based on recommendations of a committee which director Shyam Benegal leads, a draft Bill proposes an amendment to the Cinematograph Act, 1952, doing away with the powers of the CBFC to cut portions from a film, ban a film or suspend screenings of a film. The CBFC should only rate films, and qualify them for age-appropriate viewing. It suggests adding newer categories of ratings such as UA 12+, UA 15+ and adult-with-caution. Undoubtedly, filmmakers will be relieved. Under Pahlaj Nihalani, the CBFC, an autonomous body under the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry, has become a national embarrassment.
In practice, will censorship then end with making the CBFC powerless? Censorship, in most cases, is a by-product of offence, and the Indian Constitution lays out far-reaching grounds for offence in Section 295 (A) and Section 153 (A). Section 153 (A) says the grounds can be race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or “any other ground whatsoever” which may encourage feelings of hatred or animosity.
For free speech to thrive, we need to look again at archaic laws in the Constitution itself. The scope of 153 (A) and 295 (A) need to be drastically narrowed. With constitutional sanction, we take “any grounds whatsoever” for offence way too seriously.