Name:
Location: London

Monday, May 14, 2007

War on Freedom

After a refreshingly heartening series of protests across the country following the arrest of MS University student Chandramohan, I seemed to have found once again, a ray of hope in the country's youth. The latest incident of state supported suppression of one's freedom of expression took place in Gujarat (where else!) when BJP zealot Neeraj Jain along with thugs of the VHP barged into a private exhibit, meant solely for evaluation of the students' work and started tearing down artwork at the Lalit Kala Kendra in Baroda. The police, instead of stopping the vandalism, arrested the graduate student on charges of 'hurting religious sentiments'.

The destruction of Hussain's work at the Amdavad ni Gufa and the many death threats and attempts at seizing his property, along with the monetary rewards announced by the Hindu Law Board & the Shiv Sena independently for anyone who chops off the artist's hands are all known to the public. The attacks on filmmakers like Deepa Mehta and Anand Patwardhan, and the banning of many films that go even close to suggesting the harsh truths of our society are just more examples of the moral policing that these self-appointed 'cultural guardians' practice. In a democratic India, the official government authorities in charge of censorship remain mere bystanders while groups such as the BJP youth league and the VHP take the law into their own hands.

Every individual and group is entitled to its own views on bharatiya sanskriti and its 'purity'. If you find a painting offensive, walk out of the gallery! Who are these individuals and groups to decide what is appropriate for me to see, when they have no rightful authority in the matter? It is a breach of duty when the government does not take appropriate action against those openly associated with these incidents. But it is horrifying that the state machinery joins hands with the hooligans by punishing individuals who are in fact, victims of a public violation of basic human rights.

People who continue to complain about the inaction of the government while they sit in comfortable inertia are of no use today. It is therefore especially reassuring when citizens visibly demonstrate their furor through means of peaceful demonstrations and protests. Following the incident at MSU, students and artists have come out in unison all over the country. Protests in New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and Thiruvananthapuram are all the face of growing opposition against communal and cultural intolerance.

Chandramohan's classmates, in protest of MSU Vice Chancellor's action suspending Dean Panikkar who had the courage to stand up and condemn the incident, put up an exhibition of ancient Indian art showcasing ancient sculptures representing the tremendous cultural and expressive freedom that was a part of our rich heritage. An attempt to curb the student protest resulted in the Vice Chancellor ordering to seal the exhibition, in effect, censoring century-old Hindu art and heritage – does VC Manoj Soni see the irony, or the hypocrisy?!

Movies like Rang De Basanti and Munnabhai Lage Raho show a strong movement towards the sensitization of Bollywood and its acknowledgement of the needs of present day culture. The movies (though sometimes suggesting questionable means), to whatever extent, manage to inspire the youth through a realization of empowerment. The tremendous involvement of youth across the country, whether through rallies or SMS campaigns was stirring during the Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo cases. Although Chandramohan's case particularly might not be as horrifying (arrest and not cold blooded murder), the incident is symbolically, an attack on every Indian citizen's right to expression. It is evidence of an orchestrated 'war on freedom'. And we cannot affort to be silent bystanders.

Labels: , , ,

3 Comments:

Blogger KD said...

Hey Revanta!

Great thoughts, and well-written!!
(and hope you'll continue to write!)

I agree that the MSU incident is an attempt to curb the Individual's right to self-expression, which indeed is a Fundamental/Human Right. Personally, I believe that there should be maximization of Individuals' rights and liberties. (Like J.S.Mill said: Liberty means that you're free to do whatever you want, so long as you don't harm others.) There was no real 'harm' (in the strict sense) to the religious extremists, and some amount of tolerance should have been exercised. (like you said: "If you find a painting offensive, walk out of the gallery!")

Personally, I also believe in the minimal role of the State. I think that the last thing the State should do is Moral or Religious Policing and that too in the private sphere!! (it was a 'private' gallery, remember?!)

But as against my personal beliefs - the real problem comes in when this right is put against the Right to Religion, which too, is a fundamental right and to a certain extent, a "Collective Right" in practice in India.

Not only that, the right to religion is a more contested right, and to a certain extent, regarded as a "more important" one. (in fact, even something as subjective as "morality" is one of the many recognized restrictions on Freedom of Speech under the Constitution !)

Moreover, there has never been any distinction between Private and Public Sphere in India. Doesn't this indirectly give a leeway to the State to poke its nose into something as private as religion. (a disincentive for secularism?!)

Do the people of India draw any limit whatsoever on the interference of the state? Do you think India as a society is ready for the maximum protection of an Individual Right as strong as the Freedom of Speech and Expression as yet?!

4:58 AM, May 15, 2007  
Blogger Revanta Sarabhai said...

Kelly,

Thanks for the kudos!

If you look around you, I think you'll see that more and more people in India are getting increasingly concerned about the State's intervention in their personal beliefs and lives. And there are lots of us who are protesting against it.

I think India has always been ready for that right, and if you look at our history, our ancient philosophies and culture always supported individual expression and questioning.

India was formed as a secular nation, and that included the right to interpret one's religion in whatever way. Hinduism as an age-old religion and philosophy itself promotes the questioning of dharma. And our country cannot afford to let fanatics and fundamentalists take away that individual right. If there are those who are not ready for that freedom, let them by all means not exercise their right.

11:04 PM, May 19, 2007  
Blogger KD said...

Hi Revanta!

Thanks for the reply!
Interesting thoughts!

First of all, I do not know whether we can ever have a homogenous reaction from the entire India. In any society, there would always be some who want things to be different than what they are. The answer, perhaps, lies in the capacity and the level of tolerance that can be exercised towards the dissent. (and that determines the 'readiness' for individual liberty) The extremist reaction in this incident makes me think against the existence of such a maturity in the society.

I do agree that Hinduism itself provides for questioning and dissent of Dharma. But don't you think that this interpretation, questioning or dissent cannot be absolute, and should be regarded in the context? The flexibility provided by Hinduism is remarkable, but for any society (or state, for that matter) to exist as a unified entity, certain restrictions become necessay. We have to understand whether interpreting religion in a particular way which is against the 'morality' of a section of the society is such a restriction.

As the people learn to be more and more tolerant, more and more liberties can be earned by the individuals.

If we seek the State's help to make sure that no religion should be favoured or wrongfully biased against (because of lack of tolerance in the society), the State becomes more and more powerful and starts poking its nose even where it ideally should not.

I think the ancient texts in India provide for 'duties' of individuals to the society, rather than an individual's 'Right' against the State which the Constitution guarantees. (ofcourse, the duty of everyone towards everyone indirectly grants rights, but this works differently than the 'Individual Right' system, where implementation is a huge problem.) The Dharma in ancient texts itself emcompasses the melange of religion as well as politics. (where is secularism then?)

Don't you think the entire set up also represents the failure of a Anglo-Saxon model of Constitution and governance imposed on India?

9:21 AM, May 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home