Non-screening of ‘Parzania’ in Gujarat is a shocking curb on freedom of expression

Indian Express
January 30, 2007

The right to offend

NON-SCREENING OF ‘PARZANIA’ IN GUJARAT IS A SHOCKING CURB ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

by Soli Sorabjee

The film, Parzania, based on the horrific attack on Gulberg Society in Ahmedabad in which 39 people were burnt alive, can be exhibited in any place in India except in the state of Gujarat. The Gujarat government has not banned its exhibition. What is the reason for this strange phenomenon?

The Bajrang Dal has issued veiled intimidatory warnings to cinema theatre owners who are exhorted to keep the interest of the state in mind before screening the movie. Theatre owners and exhibitors are hard-headed businessmen, not passionate champions of freedom of expression. In view of practical ground realities they have chosen not to ignore Bajrang Dal’s ominous admonitions and have taken refuge in self-censorship. This is deplorable. It is reminiscent of the times when freedom of expression was severely threatened by militant groups in Punjab and J&K who dictated to the press what should or should not be printed upon pain of bodily harm. A respected editor in Punjab was assassinated for expressing views which were unpalatable to the militants. We cannot afford even the possibility of recurrence of such sordid events.

Censorship, legal and extra-legal, is a serious inroad on freedom of expression. Censorship is highly subjective and essentially mindless. The main motivation for censorship is intolerance. Conventional wisdom and official ideology cannot be allowed to be questioned and criticised and must suppressed. Portrayal of historical events which depict a government or certain persons or groups in an unfavourable light cannot be tolerated and should therefore be suppressed by recourse to censorship. One of the grounds for demanding the non-exhibition of the movie is the anticipated likelihood of law and order problems owing to the revival of painful memories.

The Supreme Court had to deal with a similar issue in connection with the serial, Tamas. A writ petition was filed by an advocate in the Supreme Court for restraining the serial’s telecast on the ground that its exhibition which depicted communal tension and violence during the pre-Partition period could lead to serious law and order problems and thus adversely affect communal harmony. The Supreme Court rejected the plea and held that “Tamas takes us to a historical past, unpleasant at times, but revealing and instructive”. It further ruled: “Truth in its proper light indicating the evils and the consequences of those evils is instructive and that message is there in Tamas — and viewed from an average, healthy and common sense point of view there cannot be any apprehension that Tamas is likely to affect public order or incite the commission of any offence. On the other hand, it is more likely that it will prevent incitement to such offences in future by extremists and fundamentalists.”

In the case of the film, Ore Oru Gramathile, a determined effort was made to ban its exhibition by a group of persons who regarded its theme and presentation as hostile to the policy of reservation of jobs and seats in educational institutions in favour of SCs and backward classes. Threats were issued by these groups to release snakes and burn down the theatres in which the movie was screened. The Madras High Court revoked the certificate granted to the movie by the Censor Board and restrained its exhibition. The SC promptly reversed the high court judgment. In its landmark judgment, it approved the observations of the European Court of Human Rights that “freedom of expression protects not merely ideas that are accepted but those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of the pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no democratic society.” The court laid down an extremely important principle that “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people”.

These salutary principles cannot be over-emphasised in view of the alarming rise of intolerance. It is depressing that we have reached a stage where even a moderate expression of a different point of view is met with hostility. Of late there have been vociferous demands for bans. The banning itch has become infectious. Sikhs are offended by certain words in the title of a movie, Christians want the movie The Da Vinci Code banned because they find it hurtful, the production of Deepa Mehta’s Water had to be abandoned in India because of disruptive protests by some intolerant groups.

The nadir of intolerance was reached when the prestigious Bhandarkar Institute at Pune, where American author James Laine had done research and had written a biography of Shivaji which contained some unpalatable references, was vandalised by bigots and invaluable manuscripts were destroyed. Consider the case of actor Aamir Khan. One may disagree with his views or criticise him for supporting the Narmada Bachao Aandolan movement. However, to burn his posters, prohibit the screening of his films and subject him in Gujarat to social and economic sanctions is terrifying intolerance.

Of all the threats to our democracy the gravest is the rise of intolerance which is utterly incompatible with democratic values and must be curbed. The state is under an obligation not to infringe the fundamental rights of its citizens. This obligation is not merely negative in nature. It is a well-settled principle of human rights jurisprudence that the state also has a positive obligation to promote fundamental rights by preventing non-state actors, for example, like the Bajrang Dal, from de facto violating freedom of expression and also to take necessary steps against them. The state cannot remain a mute spectator and by its non-action permit freedom of expression, a cherished fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, to be held to ransom.

The Gujarat government has a good record of clean and efficient administration. Its able chief minister owes it to himself, to the state and to the country to curb onslaughts on the precious freedom of expression in the state by a bunch of bigots and fanatics.

The writer is a former attorney general for India