The Sense of Censorship
Freedom of expression has always been a core issue in any discussion of liberty. Democracies all over the world have been committed to protecting freedom of expression while also being vigilant about preventing its misuse. There are recurrent events where freedom of expression has been curbed to maintain the larger social stability/order/harmony or any other similar state of affairs.
One similar instance that occurred recently in India was preceding the release of a multilingual film Vishwaroopam. There were groups representing the Muslim community which alleged that the film portrayed the Muslim community in negative light. The Tamil version of the film was slated to be released on January 25th. Owing to the consistent protests by the opposing groups, the Tamil Nadu government first stayed the release of the film on 25thand later postponed it by two weeks. The producer-director of the film approached the Madras High Court through a writ petition. The court denied granting an interim injunction and stayed the release of the film. The court stated that it had not reached any conclusion about the merits and demerits of the casebut since the Republic Day was falling the next day the it took into considerationthe threats to law and order and security in the state and upheld the decision to stay the release of the film until a judge from the HC had seen the film and decided on the matter. The State Government was vindicated. The Union government appealed to the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider its decision and cited a Supreme Court judgment in which the apex court had juxtaposed thevarious provisions of the Cinematograph Act and the law and order powers which the state government has under the Constitution. The judgment makes it clearthat Article 246, seventh schedule, list one, entry sixty gives the central government the powers to certify films for exhibition and once the Central Board for Film Certification has taken a particular view, it binds all the other instrumentalities of the state.
The stalemate did not end there. The film continued to remain banned in the state of Tamil Nadu and was finally released when the producer struck a compromise with the protesting groups whereby some scenes would be removed from the film and the protests would be withdrawn.
The entire episode - however clichéd it may appear to be due to its recurrence in the recent past - raises some larger questions about the actual freedom of expression available and innumerable sources of censorship that keep emerging in every such instance. We shall simply enlist the questions here,
•
Since the film was cleared by the Central board of film certification (the CENSOR board as it is popularly known) was it really of any business of any other authority to intervene in it?
•
Why did the Tamil Nadu govt straight away opt for a postponement of the release of the film? Could it have consulted the producers and theatre owners and asked them to postpone the release themselves?
•
Had it done so, could it have averted this controversy?
•
How could the groups that opposed the film on the pretext that it portrayed their community in a negative light know it before the film was released for public viewing?
•
Was the situation really so delicate that all the authorities including the Court believed that the film could pose a threat to communal harmony and law and order in the state?
•
There were some groups which opined that the film was portraying the Muslim community in the negative light could their position be taken as representing the entire Muslim community in particular and the society in general?
•
The film was released in other states and no instances of a hurt to communal sentiments and consequential law and order crisis were reported. Could that be taken as a litmus test to the entire issue?
•
The groups were self-proclaimed representatives of the Muslim community. What about the duly elected popular representatives who’s representation of public opinion supposedly enjoys the highest legitimacy? Why did they keep mum?
•
Why did the state government not invite the two parties for negotiations-consultations and mediate itself before postponing and then imposing a ban on the film? What were the reasons that it had to bow down to the popular pressure?
•
Was the pressure really popular? Or was it just an inflated sectional pull that had political implications for the state government?
•
Being a democracy it is necessary that the state respects popular sentiments but is it going to bow down to popular pressure (which remains extremely vague and rather dubious term)? Particularly when something as fundamental as freedom of expression is involved?
•
The state seems to be invoking its discretion and resolve in extremely delicate and crucial issues ranging from setting up of a nuclear power plants to construction of dams and water sharing. Was this issue so difficult to handle that the state would have been unable to protect the freedom of expression and maintain law and order?
•
Why is it always so that the onus of proof is placed on the party whose freedom of expression is being curbed? The film was duly cleared by the legal machinery. In such instance was it not logcal to ask the protesting party to put forward its argument? Are we going to rely on the extremely dicey and vague argument of ‘hurt feelings’ every-time such an instance crops up?
•
Can we think of some other ways to test public opinion?
•
Would it be possible to bring some fundamental clarity in terms like ‘reasonable restrictions’, ‘hurt feelings’, ‘social morality, ethics and decency’ etc. or leaving them for contextual interpretation is a boon in disguise?
The ‘Vishwaroopam’ episode once again sparked off a debate aboutartistic liberty and social censorship. One interesting point that needs to be noted here is that why such ‘hurt feelings’ instances come to surface just before a film or any such artistic piece is set for public exhibition? This leads us to consider a few more questions such as,
•
What do these protesting groups do when these artworks are in making?
•
Are these protests genuine or are they simply a cheap ploy to get instant and free publicity?
•
Do they really stand up to protest on their own or are they instigated and given some ‘impetus’ to protest?
There is a host of other issues and questions involved in this. For the time being we shall conclude with these few preliminary questions.
