The matter of allowing this great new tendency to blow up ‘Indian offendedness’ into an art form of obstructionism must be tackled by the states
With a lucidity not given to too many politicians, Tamil Nadu chief minister J. Jayalalithaa cleared the air over the obstructions to the release of the movie Vishwaroopam by the renowned actor Kamal Haasan. In moving to strike a balance between artistic creativity and the larger social fabric of the land, in which harmony is a significant ideal as well as a necessity, Ms Jayalalithaa spelt out a state’s difficulties in maintaining law and order with an inadequate police force if there is an apprehension of problems.
Her consensus approach to the problem of the specific movie may have already helped clear the way for its quick release in Tamil Nadu.
It is arguable whether her assertion that a state has the right to ban a film — as enshrined in Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Cinematography Act of 1955 — is valid when seen in the national perspective. It is a fact that the movie Dam 999, which may be an allegory for the water dispute between Kerala and Tamil Nadu over the Mullaiperiyar dam, is not to be shown in the state. There is a clear divergence of opinion between the Centre and the state over whether a film, once cleared by the national certification board, can be banned by a state. This problem needs to be addressed. Since the information and broadcasting minister is already speaking on these lines, maybe it is time to seek changes in the statute to make the position clear.
There is a larger issue, that of basic freedoms. The Indian tendency to take offence to anything can lead to an awkward situation, like the one in which writer Salman Rushdie is able to visit a few major cities in India, but not Kolkata where resistance to the movie based on his book Midnight’s Children has gotten out of hand. How do we draw a line between a state’s responsibilities in maintaining law and order and its basic function of upholding the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution?
The matter of allowing this great new tendency to blow up “Indian offendedness” into an art form of obstructionism must be tackled by the states as they are the ones who would be facing the brunt of such cases of resistance to artistic freedoms and the inviolable freedom of expression. And then, of course, there lies the question of states having to show the political will to stand up to the dictates of the khap panchayats, which seem to have the clout to enforce their will. So many issues have cropped up in the recent past that there is a clear need for leaders and legislators to take a firm stand on preserving individual freedoms.
Post new comment