Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The three-member committee constituted by the Gujarat governor to investigate the row over the 8216;obscene8217; painting at Baroda8217;s MS University last year rightly recommends that the suspension of Shivaji Panikkar be revoked. The acting dean of the university8217;s prestigious Fine Arts Faculty was forced to step down when he defended his student Chandramohan Srilamantula against the attack mounted by a mob on the university premises. The committee also does well to advise that Chandramohan be taken back and judged for his work. The indictment of the university authorities for their dereliction of duty in the face of hooliganism was also long overdue. Yet the sense is unavoidable: the committee does not go far enough. It bases its conclusions and recommendations on the fact that Chandramohan8217;s painting was part of an internal examination. As a report in this paper has pointed out, committee members were of the view that the word 8216;obscene8217; could have been used had the works been part of a public display. This is a half-hearted defence of the freedom of expression.
It is true that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally subject to reasonable restrictions. Yet, even a cursory look at recent episodes when it has been sought to be curtailed in our country would illustrate how far the balance has tilted towards an unreasonably restrictive environment. The onus is always on the artist and writer to explain themselves while the agitators who are acting in the name of 8220;the people8221; always roam free. First the attack is carried out, and then before the victim can react, cases are filed against the victim and rarely against the perpetrators. These cases 8212; filed under some problematic sections of the penal code that were intended as safeguards against hate speech and are now mostly misused 8212; drag on. The hounding of M.F. Husain is a perfect case in point.
