Intolerance
stems from an invincible assumption of the infallibility of one’s beliefs and a
dogmatic conviction about their rightness. An intolerant society cannot
tolerate expression of ideas and views which challenge its current doctrines
and conventional wisdom. Consequently, unconventional and heterodox thoughts
and views have to be suppressed. That is the prime motivation for censorship.
Extent
of dissent
One
criterion to determine whether a country is truly democratic is the extent of
dissent permitted. A liberal democracy is one in which all groups in the
country accept the fact that in a free country, people can have different
opinions and beliefs and shall have equal rights in voicing them without fear
of legal penalties or social sanctions. Right to dissent and tolerance of
dissent are sine qua non of a liberal democratic society.
Today
we have reached a stage where expression of a different point of view is viewed
with resentment and hostility and there are vociferous demands for bans. The
banning itch has become infectious. Sikhs are offended by certain words in the
title of a movie; Christians want the movie, The Da Vinci Code, banned
because they find some portions hurtful. The ban was struck down by the Andhra
Pradesh High Court. No one dare write an authentic and critical biography of a
revered religious or political leader. The American author James Laine who wrote
a biography of Shivaji in which there were unpalatable remarks about Shivaji
was sought to be prosecuted which was quashed by the Supreme Court. Worse, the
prestigious Bhandarkar Institute at Pune where Laine had done some research was
vandalised. That was mobocracy in action. The exhibition of M.F. Husain’s
paintings was stopped by intimidation followed by vandalism of the premises.
The exhibition The Naked and the Nude at the Art Gallery in
Delhi is threatened with dire consequences because it is considered obscene by
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad women’s wing. The musical performance by a teenage
girl rock band in Kashmir was coerced into silence because the music was termed
un-Islamic by a popular religious leader. There are media reports that Mani
Ratnam’s latest movie Kadal has come under fire on account of
Christian ire that it has ‘hurt’ the feelings of the community. One wonders
whether we are hell bent on emulating the Taliban.
Fortunately,
our Supreme Court has been a valiant defender of freedom of expression. The
well known actor Khushboo faced several criminal prosecutions on account of her
remarks on premarital sex and its prevalence in metropolitan cities which were
considered to be against the dignity of Tamil women and ruined the culture and
morality of the people of Tamil Nadu. The Supreme Court quashed the criminal
proceedings on the ground that “under our constitutional scheme different views
are allowed to be expressed by the proponents and opponents. … Morality and
criminality are far from being coextensive. An expression of opinion in favour
of non-dogmatic and non-conventional morality has to be tolerated and the same
cannot be a ground to penalise the author.”
The
movie, Bandit
Queen, was banned on the ground of obscenity because of the very brief
scene of frontal nudity of the bandit Phoolan Devi in the movie. The Supreme
Court struck down the ban and ruled that nakedness is not per
se obscene. The Court emphasised that the Censor Tribunal which is a
multi-member body comprised of persons who gauge public reactions to films had
approved exhibition of the movie. This aspect was also highlighted by the
Supreme Court in its judgment in T. Kannan.
Exhibition
of movies is included in the fundamental right of freedom of expression
guaranteed by the Constitution. One of the reasons frequently assigned for
imposing a ban is that it hurts the sentiments of a certain section of people
in society. ‘Hurt feelings’ is a slippery slope for banning expression. Any
book or movie or play which criticises certain practices and advocates reforms
will ‘hurt’ the sentiments of the status-quoists. For example,
the abolition of Sati or the abolition of certain superstitious practices in
the name of religion. Criticism should not be equated with causing offence. In the
context of hurt feelings, the Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that the
standard to be applied for judging the film should be that of an ordinary man
of common sense and prudence and not that of “hypersensitive” persons who sense
offence in every scene or perceive hurt in every statement. The right method is
to vigorously refute the criticism by rebutting its reasoning and data on which
its conclusions are based.
Another
ground for imposing a ban is the bogey about apprehension of breach of law and
order and outbreak of violence in view of threats by certain groups about the
exhibition of the movie. As far back as November 2000, the Supreme Court in KM
Shankarappa’s case categorically ruled that “once an expert body has
considered the impact of the film on the public and has cleared the film, it is
no excuse to say that there may be a law and order situation. … In such a case,
the clear duty of the government is to ensure that law and order is maintained
by taking appropriate actions against persons who choose to breach the law.”
The
same bogey of breach of law and order and violence was raised by the State of
Tamil Nadu regarding exhibition of the movie, Ore Oru Gramathile. The
Supreme Court firmly rejected the State’s plea in its decision in Rangarajan in
March 1989 in these words: “Freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on
account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That
would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail
and intimidation.” The Court reiterated that “it is the duty of the State to
protect freedom of expression. The State cannot plead its inability to handle
the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and
protect the freedom of expression.” It is noteworthy that the Supreme Court
endorsed the celebrated dictum of the European Court of Human Rights that
freedom of expression guarantees “not only views that are generally received
but also those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the
population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and
broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.”
During
the hearing of the writ petition regarding the movie Dam999, certain observations
were made orally off the cuff by the Supreme Court about law and order problems
that may arise because of the exhibition of a movie. The writ petition was in
fact dismissed as infructuous because the period of the ban had expired. There
is no mention or discussion of the decision in Rangarajan at all in
the operative part of the Supreme Court order. The salutary principle laid down
in the Rangarajan decision
has been approved in three subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. It firmly
holds the field and has not been diluted at all.
In
contravention of the law
Banning
of the movie Vishwaroopam by the State of Tamil Nadu was
clearly in contravention of the law laid down by our Supreme Court. The sad
part is that Kamal Haasan, producer of the movie, agreed to carry out cuts in
the movie as demanded by certain Muslim groups. It was not a settlement but
surrender by Mr. Haasan albeit for pragmatic reasons. However it lays down a
bad precedent because it concedes to certain intolerant groups demanding a ban,
a veto or appellate power over the decision of an expert body like the Censor
Board.
Our
Constitution prescribes certain fundamental duties to be performed by citizens
(Article 51-A). One duty of paramount importance which should be performed is
the duty to practise tolerance. Otherwise democracy, a basic feature of our
Constitution, will be under siege and the cherished right to freedom of
expression will be held hostage by an intolerant mindless mob.
No comments:
Post a Comment