Touchy, aren146;t we?

There have been cases in the past regarding depiction of historical events and personalities. In an article Mahatma Gandhi8217;s philosophy of non-violence was condemned as pacifism born out of cowardice. A question arose before the Bombay high court regarding the action that may be taken against the writer. The high court in its judgment dated August 2, 1968 in the case of Anant Karandikar laid down certain important principles. It ruled that 8220;merely because the criticism has been made of one whose memory is held dearly by millions of people would not be a ground for coming to the conclusion that the writer wanted to tarnish Mahatma Gandhi8217;s name8221;. The high court further observed that 8220;it is the right and privilege of every thinker to express his judgment on historical events in a fearless manner8230; History is not to serve as the hand-maid of a particular school of thought8221;.

The telecast of the television series Tamas was sought to be banned. The petitioner8217;s complaint was that Tamas depicted Hindu-Muslim and Sikh-Muslim tension before Partition and showed the killings and looting that took place involving these communities. Consequently exhibition of the serial was likely to incite the people to commit offences and therefore its exhibition should be banned. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions and held that 8220;viewed from an average healthy and commonsense point of view there cannot be any apprehension that it is likely to affect public order or it is likely to incite the commission of any offence8221;. The court emphasised that the effect of a book or a movie must be judged by standards of reasonable and strong-minded persons and not of those who perceive insult and injury in any unpleasant or hostile version.

In the present case the chief minister is reported to have said that he saw the movie and found nothing objectionable. The censor board had cleared the movie. What then is the problem? It seems that the movie has angered some sections of the Rajput community according to whom Jodhabai was not married to Akbar but to his son, Jehangir/Salim. According to another section, Jodhabai was not a Rajput princess but the daughter of one of the concubines of Maharaja Bhar Mal of Amer and the film has distorted historical facts to malign the Rajput community. Assuming these assertions are correct, then it is open to these persons to protest against the movie in the print or electronic media and condemn its alleged historical errors and distortions. It is also open to stage demonstrations against the movie and call for its banning. But it is certainly not permissible or lawful to threaten or indulge in violence like damaging or burning theatres where the movie is shown. Moreover, Ashutosh Gowariker, the maker of the movie, in his Idea Exchange with The Indian Express has clarified that he is not claiming to be a historian and his purpose in making the movie is to entertain. An explicit appropriate disclaimer to that effect should put an end to the controversy.

What is disturbing is the reason given by the MP government for banning the movie, namely that 8220;it could lead to law and order problems8221;. This is patently untenable. A similar situation occurred in Tamil Nadu in 1988 for banning the exhibition of a movie, Ore Oru Gramathile, by a group of persons who regarded its theme and its presentation as hostile to the policy of reservation of jobs in public employment and seats in educational institutions in favour of the Scheduled Castes and backward classes. The Madras high court revoked the certificate granted by the board of censors and restrained its exhibition. In its landmark decision in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram the Supreme Court reversed the Madras high court judgment. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty speaking for the Supreme Court rejected the contention that exhibition of the movie was bound to cause violent reactions and reaffirmed the principle that 8220;the standard to be applied by the board or courts for judging the film should be that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not that of an out of the ordinary or hypersensitive man8221;. The court ruled that 8220;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 society8221;. The court further held that 8220;if the film is unobjectionable and cannot be constitutionally restricted under Article 192 freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats of demonstrations and violence. That would be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation8230; Freedom of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people.8221; The court categorically laid down that 8220;it is the duty of the state to protect the freedom of expression8230; The state cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression.8221; Italics mine.

The decision of the MP government to ban Jodhaa Akbar is not only an onslaught on the freedom of expression but is in effect a surrender to intolerant lawless behaviour and is in teeth of the Supreme Court judgment in S. Rangarajan. It is a pernicious precedent, and the ban should be withdrawn at the earliest.

The writer is a former attorney general for India solisorabjeehatyway.com

Curated For You

Dhurandhar Movie Box Office Collection Day 25 Update: Ranveer Singh film crosses Rs 11 crore mark on 4th Tuesday

India Women vs Sri Lanka Women 5th T20I Highlights: IND defeat SL by 15 runs, complete 5-0 series whitewash

Gold Today Rate, December 30: Check 18, 22 and 24 carat gold prices Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata and other cities