Politics of Intimidation and Mobocracy

-->

The recent acts of vandalism at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) in Pune and ban on Taslima Nasreen's book, Dwikhandito by the West Bengal government highlights the urgency to check social censorship, and save shrinking space for a civil way to resolve competitive discourses. The Pune incident resulted in the Maharashtra government succumbing to mob pressure and imposing a ban on James Laine's "Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India". There has been a spurt in attempts to curtail the right of expression in recent times with organized groups trying to intimidate, and governments meekly giving in. The challenges are many fold. In some cases governments have tried to muzzle the freedom of the Press (Tamilnadu) by hijacking legitimate institutions like legislatures and not taking kindly to any non-state sponsored discourse. Capitalising on parochial sentiments is not particular to any specific region, with the Karnataka government expressing its inability to implement court orders in the Cauvery water dispute. This has provided ammunition to articulate political/religious demands by groups on sectarian lines. In many cases taking to the streets has provided legitimacy and recognition to groups as the only representatives of communities/regions, affecting the prospects of debates and dissent in a democratic society. This system of stage managed protests serves the ends of extremists of various hues to target the state and gain its intervention to meet their demands. With the national polls around the corner these issues command a premium in electoral politics, and there is near unanimity among the political parties in Maharashtra, to browbeat each other for assuaging the "sensitivities" of the electorate. Ironically these events have resonated in other parts of the country with lumpen elements destroying the paintings of eminent artists like M. F. Hussein and K. H. Ara in Surat on the grounds of promoting blasphemy. Not to be left behind some groups have announced cash awards to blacken Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen's face at the Kolkatta book fair and similarly humiliate Salman Rushdie during his visit to Mumbai for their alleged blasphemous writings. Surprisingly, political parties have been trying to create vote banks based on such divisive agendas despite their avowed affirmation of the various freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. India presents the strange paradox of governments evading debates on films, books and paintings by imposing bans on them, Civil society gets overwhelmed under a cacophony of protests baying for blood. The voices of dissent run the risk of entering the list of endangered species. These developments call for a debate as to who should represent "what" and what norms should be adhered to in dealing with multiple opinions and dissent in the cultural sphere, which is the hallmark of a democratic society. This is not to deride legitimate grievances of some sections of society regarding misrepresentations of their faith and values. The present crisis has been compounded by the ambiguous stand taken by the state by discarding its role of an arbiter. There have been several instances when the state shied away from addressing these hard issues and retreated behind bans. The Rajiv Gandhi government went ahead and banned Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses" following pressure by some sections of the Muslims. The Hollywood film "The Last Temptation of Christ" met with a similar fate for allegedly being blasphemous and hurting religious sentiments. The present regime displayed a similar attitude in 2001 when there were protests against shooting of the film "Water" for alleging trying to portray the Holy city of Varanasi in a poor light. The present situation calls for serious introspection on all fronts, so that civil society is able to uphold artistic freedom and the state defends the basic rights of expression and dissent. The state in countries like India, with a heterogeneous identity, is considered the natural arbiter in resolving differences, but also in ensuring social tolerance. The meek surrender to group pressure tactics and censorship by self righteous cultural vandals rob democracy of its normative values, while drastically undermines the legitimacy of the state. So, instead of resorting to blanket bans, there is a need to go into the merits of the case and arrive at decisions taking public interest into account. Given the surcharged nature of the polity, there is an urgent need to defend the right of expression but also promote the democratic norm of resolving differences in a pluralist ethos. How could one sound so indignant at the destruction of the Bamiyan Budhas some years ago, whilst lacking conviction when valuable artifacts and manuscripts were destroyed in Pune to assuage allegedly aggrieved sentiments. Published on 23 February 2004, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies

URL: 

http://www.ipcs.org/comm_select.php?articleNo=1307