Navhind Times, 21 October 2007
Freedom of Expression, Hate Speech, and the Government Response
Vidyadhar Gadgil
Freedom of expression has been an issue that has been much in the public eye of late. At the national level, we have had two major cases of artists – M.F. Hussain and Taslima Nasrin – who have been attacked by religious fundamentalists (the former by the Hindu variety and the latter by the Muslim version) for ‘hurting religious sentiments’.
Goa too has been witnessing a heated public debate on the issue of freedom of expression over the Hindu Janjagruti Sammelan-FACT (Foundation Against Continuing Terrorism) exhibition at the Kala Academy which concluded on 2nd October, Gandhi Jayanti. Secular, human rights groups and ordinary citizens have been questioning the government patronage extended to the exhibition, and even demanding that the government step in forthwith to stop it, arguing that it is covered under the ‘hate speech’ exception. The Constitution, under Article 19, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, but this freedom is not absolute. As with other provisions related to various freedoms in Article 19, ‘reasonable restrictions’ can be imposed upon this right. In this article, we will look at three examples – the screening of Rakesh Sharma’s ‘Final Solution’, Prof. Puniyani’s public talk and the FACT exhibition – all dealing with the phenomenon of communal violence. How are we to distinguish between them and decide what stand to take on each? And how do we understand the government response to them, both singly and taken as a whole, in the context of this constitutional provision?
This exhibition, which is based on photographs by the Frenchman Francois Gautier, has been touring the hinterland of Goa for some months now and has been the centrepiece of a major communal mobilisation by the Hindutva forces. When the exhibition was on at the Kala Academy, volunteers would entice you inside, telling you to come and see the atrocities being perpetrated by violent Muslims against innocent Hindus. The photographs depicted mutilated corpses and other scenes of violence. Was this used to warn us of the dangers of communal violence? No, the captions and posters were inflammatory and invited the viewer to further violence. To quote just one example, “If you are a Hindu, and your blood does not boil when you see this, then you are not a true Hindu.” The whole purpose of the exhibition appeared to be to create a deep, visceral hatred among Hindus towards Muslims. There were jeeps going round Panjim, with megaphone-wielding volunteers exhorting Hindus to come see the exhibition, understand the threat against them, and unite to defend the faith. There were clips promoting this film running on Goan cable channels showing ‘Hindu self-defence squads’. Defence against what and whom? Is this relevant in the Goan context; in fact, is it not actively seeking to create a problem where none exists? As for Francois Gautier, the photographer, we all know his history as a cheerleader of the Hindu right and as a person who denigrated ex-President Narayan as an ‘untouchable’.
As we have seen, the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute – the state may impose reasonable restrictions upon it ‘in the interest of public order, security of State, decency or morality’. Are we then to argue that no depiction or analysis of communal violence be permitted? If we demand that the FACT exhibition be stopped, are we saying that all depiction of communal violence be banned? Two other recent cases from Goa relating to freedom of expression in relation to depiction and analysis of communal violence are instructive in this regard.
It is well established in Indian law that it is not the actual portrayal but the framing and the intent that is to be invoked when imposing restrictions. Rakesh Sharma’s film ‘Final Solution’ is a study of the gruesome communal violence directed against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. Through meticulous documentation of events and detailed interviews with some of the dramatis personae, the film projects itself as a ‘study of the politics of hate’. The director claims that “Final Solution is anti-hate/violence as those who forget history are condemned to relive it.” When the film was screened widely in Goa in August 2006, with the director in attendance, there were protests from some sections of the Hindu right, asking that they be stopped.
The film was denied a certificate by the Censor Board (during the NDA regime) for several months. It was only after a sustained public campaign that the ban was finally lifted and a censor certificate issued in October 2004. The film has subsequently gone on to win a plethora of national and international awards and has been feted as one of the most powerful statements against the politics of hate and violence made in recent times. Answering questions after a well-attended public screening in Panjim in August 2006, Sharma agreed that the film does depict communal violence and records communal speeches, but argued that all this is framed in a context which argues against these phenomena. He went on to say, “Months of filming in Gujarat showed me how viciously communal propaganda can pollute the public mind – hatred of the other is now common sense. Communal violence scars not only its victims but also its perpetrators, leaving deep wounds in society which can take centuries to heal. If we take this path, we are in danger of becoming a society of psychopaths.”
The last of our three cases from Goa around this theme was a talk by Prof. Puniyani on the subject ‘Communal Threats to Secular Democracy in India’ in May 2007. Prof. Ram Puniyani has been a sustained campaigner against communal politics for some time. He argues that communal politics, whether claiming support from Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, is essentially the same. It does not concern itself with the moral aspect of religion, which is similar across all religions, but with identity politics. It tries to build political constituencies by claiming support from religion and employs violent means towards this end. In an interview given in Goa in August 2007, when asked where he thinks India is heading in respect of communal violence, he replied, “I think we are at the critical path. We can either choose the path of destruction due to communalism or we have to realise the dangers of it and thus bring back the values of the freedom movement.”
Now let us examine the way the Government of Goa reacted in each of these cases. The government did not extend any support to Rakesh Sharma’s film. Human rights groups in Goa organised the screenings in non-governmental public spaces. By no word or gesture did the government express any support to its anti-hate message. It could perhaps be argued that this is not the job of the government. But why then was the FACT exhibition, which is clearly communal hate speech and propaganda, allowed on the premises of the Kala Academy? This is the premier public space of Goa, which is chaired by a committee headed by the current Speaker and ex-Chief Minister, Pratapsinh Rane. The Chief Minister, Digambar Kamat, saw fit to visit this exhibition. There has been no attempt to curb the communal propaganda taking place in Goa under the pretext of mobilising the masses to view this exhibition.
Fine. That means the Goa government permits freedom of speech, with no exceptions? But in the case of Prof. Ram Puniyani’s talk, the administration stepped in to stop his public talk on the basis of a complaint made by some members of the VHP. By no stretch of the imagination can Prof. Puniyani be described as a person indulging in communal propaganda – in fact, he devotes all his time to combating it. Yet the government banned the talk. The Chief Election Commissioner, N. Gopalaswami, commented at the time that that “this action on the part of the SDM was wrong.”
In the context of these three cases, one would have to accept that the behaviour of the government is, to say the very least, inconsistent. But a more in-depth analysis indicates something far more disturbing. The government, in the case of the screenings of ‘Final Solution’, sees no need to support anti-hate messages arguing for peace and harmony. Not content with that, in the case of Dr. Puniyani, it actually bans such messages. And in a final travesty, in the case of the FACT exhibition it actively connives with hate speech, enabling its spread by providing it with government space to disseminate its virulent messages.
Goa is still peaceful and harmonious, but communal agendas have entered so deeply into the psyche of our political class that we no longer need a ‘communal’ government to be in power to advance the agenda of hate and violence; our ‘secular’ government does the job perfectly well. In terms of actual action on the ground, such labels are becoming meaningless; all are now the same. V.D. Savarkar and Mohammad Ali Jinnah (atheists both, but masters at using religion for political purposes) can rest in peace – irrespective of who is in power in Goa, their poisonous legacy is in safe hands.
|
