Supreme Court of India legitimises
bans and gag orders

When the highest of judicial offices betrays a total lack of the sense of justice, what can you expect from other organs and pillars of democracy?

We know for sure now that India is a banana republic, ruled by a bunch of insensitive parasites who are intellectually bankrupt, morally depraved, spiritually dead, and corrupt to the core. Our parliamentarians, bureaucrats, judges, moneybags, and even media persons are determined to take away the freedom of the individual. They have no commitment to truth, justice, and fair play.
 

Look at the order of the Justices B.P Singh and H.S. Bedi, “ ...It is true that forfeiture of a newspaper or book or document is a serious encroachment on the right of a citizen, but if forfeiture is called for in the public interest it must without a doubt have pre-eminence over any individual interest.”

Two learned judges deliver an order that gives unlimited power to the state to gag and ban contrary opinions and beliefs. Who determines what is in public interest? It is the state created through a popular vote. So, it is the dominant majority that determines the rights of an individual to express himself/herself freely.

Go back to the history of civilisation. The most revolutionary of ideas and opinions and theories and theorems were suppressed exactly for the reasons propounded by the learned judges here. They challenged established opinions and practices and were subversive in their content. The barbaric state apparatus harassed, hounded, maimed, guillotined, hanged, and banished the heroes, the revolutionaries, and the geniuses among humanity using the argument ‘...public interest has pre-eminence over individual interest.’ Yet, our top judges deliver a thoughtless and absurd judgement using the exact language of those barbaric civilisations.
 

If that is the case, why are you trying the Gujarat policemen for fake encounters? They defied and circumvented the law to kill the perceived enemies of people. If a vote will be taken today, all Gujaratis will justify the killing of gangsters in fake encounters. And why Gujaratis, the entire population of India would prefer this kind of instant justice mechanism to the existing criminal and civil justice system which has anyway become a farce now.

And why should the state take a call on what is in public interest and what is not? Let the people on the street decide that. Let them be the judges. Let democracy rule on the streets. And how can you deride village Panchayats who pass draconian edicts based on their tribal customs and with the concurrence of the local population? What is wrong in witches being made to walk in the nude through a village, carrying dung on their tonsured heads since it serves the public interest and demand? What is wrong with the institution of child marriage? What is wrong with the ‘Sati’ system? What is wrong in lynching a professor who marries a girl of his daughter’s age? What is wrong with the Taliban style punishment to women who don’t wear burkhas? If these acts, which are generally performed in the name of public interest, are unacceptable, how can the banning of a book or a film or a painting be acceptable?
 

In the land of Valmiki and Charvaka, Tilak and Gandhi, you cannot even use your pen, brush, and camera to protest against the establishment and we claim to be the biggest democracy on the earth. That is the problem. We are a democracy, which in simple terms means rule by the elected representatives, elected by the mobs that go out and vote in large numbers. That is why the Parliament passes constitutional amendments for caste-based reservations even without a debate.

The judgement of Singh and Bedi is bad all the way. Again, we hear no voices of serious protest from the intelligentsia or the jurists on this. Whereas judgements in cases related to M.F. Hussein and Richard Gere hog the limelight and are considered outrageous. In the case of Gere, even a judge was sent on a punishment posting. The Supreme Court takes special interest in providing relief to MFH and Gere, yet its judges pass orders that allow the state to take away the rights of free expression. Are we living in a madhouse or what?

The role of the media is getting worse. Of late, we have seen examples where it has become the voice of the mob. It decides who is a criminal and who is not and who should be lynched and who should be spared and who should be derided for inappropriate social and political behaviour. The media dictates and our judicial officers reproduce its warped, motivated, and juvenile views verbatim as judicial pronouncements.
 

Do we have the propensity to provide room for debate, dissent, discordance, and free expression and have the resolve and commitment to protect the individual from the tyranny of the dominant majority? If we do, we can rightfully claim to be a civilised society. If we don’t, we are barbarians. You cannot lay claim to being civilised just because you have a parliament, a supreme court, a constitution, a whole lot of newspapers, hundreds of TV channels, and a voluble bunch of constitutional experts and jurists.

And what are the likes of Menaka Gandhi and Govind Nihlani doing? They seem to be protesting not for the principle but for the benefit of the media. They should have been demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court that has given the state blanket permission to issue gag and ban orders, a dangerous and ominous development.

You can tackle a handful of effigy burners and protestors, physically, morally, legally, and ideologically through debate, discourse, and counter-protest. How do you deal with an all-powerful state that decides to shut you up in the name of larger public interest?  What is happening in Maharashtra and West Bengal? Books are being banned; a whole village is being browbeaten into submission. Various arms of the state like CBFC (Film Censor Board) continue to exist and throttle the freedom of expression of the individual. However, Govind Nihlani and other professed secularists get more exercised over some minor acts of vandalism in Vadodara and court cases against Hussein just because they look at it as an opportunity to deride the Hindutva brigade, particularly that of Gujarat, which is a fashionable thing to do.

Why is there no serious protest at the banning of Laine’s book on Shivaji? Why don’t they fight for the scrapping of the CBFC? Why did they keep mum over the happenings in Nandigram and when Arun Shourie’s remarks on Ambedkar in his book led to violent protests of the worst kind? And why do you want Bal Thakare to be arrested for his incendiary writings? Why is Hussein’s freedom of expression more precious that that of Thakare? And why do you want those who protest against his paintings in a legitimate way to be punished? They too have the right to protest. Vandalism is a criminal and punishable offence. Those who resort to vandalism must be punished under the law. However, the right to protest and propagate cannot be taken away by the state or by any political, religious, social, secular, communal, fundamentalist, or cultural outfits of red, blue, white, green, yellow, black, or saffron shades.
 

You must not contaminate your commitment to the greater cause of the freedom of artistic and individual expression by mixing your secularist or personal agenda with it. Regrettably, that is what has been happening all the time. If you don’t raise your voice against violent protests over Danish cartoons and on the banning of Satanic Verses and Tasleema Nasreen’s book in West Bengal, you forfeit the moral right to protest in the name of the freedom of artistic expression.

How can you take artistic liberty with Hindu icons while denying similar liberty to those who use the icons of Christianity and Islam for their unique artistic expression? Why did you keep mum over the banning of Da Vinci Code and The Last Temptation of Christ? Why was a film on Gandhi’s days in Britian  not given the Censor certificate and none protested? Why were cinema halls in West Bengal  vandalised and burnt by the leftists and the Maoists for showing films that mocked Mao?  When a not so artistically inclined Hindu sees this he feels slighted and stupid. He decides not to be tolerant of the derogatory depiction of his gods and goddesses too. It is a valid reaction and when he protests he is called communal and a monster and a Talibani and a villain.
 

How dare you do this to him using your media power? All those who are going hammer and tongs against Bajrang Dal activists are hypocrites and cowards. They use their freedom of expression when it is convenient, politically correct, and safe. Good that the Bajrang Dal activists are making it unsafe for them now. The true subversive potential and spirit of these artistes will get tested now. If they really and honestly want to test their mettle they should be making cartoons of Mohammed Saheb. Aao jawano, sirphiroshi ke liye taiyar ho jao. Bechare Bajrang dal walon per zor azmaish karne ka kya faayada, Khomeini aur Mullah Omar se lado to koi baat ho. Yahan Hindustaan mein bhi jail jaoge, aur zamanat bhi nahin milegi.

And how can you deride and ban a CD that shows terrorists and some Muslims in bad light as something that may disturb communal harmony? The same argument can be used to put Hussein behind bars. Had Hussein portrayed any of the icons of Islam in the manner he portrayed Goddess Durga, he would have been dead by now. And why is he hiding in London? If he has the conviction, he should also have the courage to defend himself here in India and face the consequences of being true to his art. Why so much of dramabaazi is going on? He knows nothing will happen to him. India is not Iran or Saudi Arab. The most rabid of Bajrang Dal activists is a thousand times more liberal than a zealot Islamist and a hard boiled leftist and a secularist. Hussein knows it and that is why he continues with his mischief mongering.

I was listening to this retired adman called Alaque Padamsee pontificating about tolerance and artistic freedom. I dare him to do a play based on Satanic Verses. If he has the guts, he should stand up and defend the freedom of expression of the Danish cartoonists. He is a much-celebrated Muslim (many mistake him to be a Parsi) and his community will hear his voice. He should be doing plays about the problems of women within his own community and the way they are brutalised with due sanctions of their religious texts. He would not do that. He wants to have the cake and eat it too. He cannot put his faith on line but would happily defend artistic freedom of expression, when it comes to the subversive artistic depiction of Hindu icons.

The issue is if one should tolerate the intolerant. It will be stupid to do so. Hindus will be stupid to allow intolerant secularists, padres, mullahs, and highly opinionated media commentators to have a field day. They should protest the way the Islamists do, vociferously, intensely, and furiously, whenever someone depicts their icons carelessly. And they should challenge their opponents on every forum, with their cogent arguments, lung power, and numbers.

But the state must not be allowed to curtail the freedom of artistic expression in the name of larger public interest under any circumstance. That will be disastrous.