.jpg "rani-padmini-padmavati (1)")
Artistic freedom, critical outlook and social media expressions are increasingly threatened. As hefty price is being announced for the heads (and noses too) of writers, actors and directors, the issue is snowballing into a major controversy, pushing democracy to intensive care unit.
In July 27, the Supreme Court refused to stay the release of Madhur Bhandarkar film, Indu Sarkar, set in the backdrop of Emergency, upholding ‘artistic freedom’ guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Claiming to be the biological daughter of Sanjay Gandhi, Miss Priya Singh Paul sought Bombay High Court to prevent the release of the movie. The petition was rejected. Bhandarkar claimed that his film has no resemblance to Indira Gandhi or her son.
This, however, does not mean a license to misuse freedom. On April 17, 2015 the Supreme Court cautioned that artistic freedom could not be misused for abusing icons like Mahatma Gandhi. The court said it was no offence to criticize, lampoon and make parodies of the country's iconic figures but freedom of expression could not be stretched to allow a person to demean them by using obscene language, which was an offence under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code, providing for a maximum jail term of two years.
"You cannot use abusive words for historical figures under the garb of artistic freedom. There is a complete freedom for ideas but the freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. The Constitution provides restrictions and it is a regulated freedom," a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant said. The observation came on the pleas of Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar who sought quashing of the case against him for publishing a “vulgar and obscene” Marathi poem associated with Gandhi and his ideology. "Had it be an ordinary 'Gandhi' it would not have been a problem, but using Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is objectionable. Mahatma is not a mythical or imaginary character who can be abused. This work would not come under artistic freedom and would attract provisions of Section 292," the bench said. "You can write satire on Gandhi, lampoon him or criticize him but if you put abusive words in his mouth, then it is not permissible," it added.
Similarly, another bench of Supreme Court, while dealing with a petition to stall release of a movie based on life of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said, “The courts should be extremely slow in passing any kind of restraint or order stopping a creative man from writing drama, a book, philosophy or projecting his thoughts in a film or theatre art.”
The present CJI, who was also part of first two orders referred above, has said, “It is worthy to mention that right to freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and should not be ordinarily interfered with. Dismissing a petition to stay screening of Padmavati, the three judge bench explained: "A thought-provoking film does not mean it should be puritanical. A film has to be expressive to provoke the conscious and subconscious mind of a viewer."
Undoubtedly, the right to freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Satires, humour, severe negative criticism, exaggeration, lampooning containing ‘distortion’ are all parts of this freedom. Diversion and expansion or adding minute details to a historical storyline are necessary for dramatic representation. A movie goer cannot expect a director to offer him a documentary. He/she looks for spice, conflict, dramatic twists and turns and heroic display of courage among other entertaining elements.
History gives the storyline and the director has to add blood and flesh to it. Dialogues need to be generated. Accurate narration of history is almost impossible. A movie, thus, cannot be judged on such fictional additions and dramatic depictions.
Controversy is how these principles apply to dynamics of Padmavati movie and reactions to it and what could be the safe middle line, especially when the very sensitive issues of ‘self respect’ of Rajput women and history that is replete with sacrifice of thousands of wives of Rajput kings to secure their sanctity and reject the invaders is involved.
Do protestors have a right to freedom of speech and expression as these directors or writers have? The answer is 'yes'. If an expression is founded on freedom, criticism against it also is rooted in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. These two expressions cannot be justified on the grounds that one has spent millions or the sentiments of others were hurt.
If the protests are so serious that public order is going to be disturbed, the governing machinery has a duty to check the consequences of the communication of expression. Public order is the ground on which the Parliament can pass a law to impose reasonable restrictions on the expression under Article 19(2). It has passed such laws.
Distortion of history or abuse of heroes are not primary grounds for restricting a movie. However they can lead to a ‘ground’ of public order. The Constitution thus facilitates the freedom of expression at the other end as well. Democracy operates on public opinion. A group of persons can generate or manufacture the opinion. A ruling party or coalition will either facilitate or oppose the opinions as per their own policies and programmes. Especially when a contentious election season is around, that becomes a reason. All are in market place of ideas as Milton, John Stuart Mill and other philosophers of democratic free expression propounded. If the people reject it, that is all. A movie with history as basis may drastically suffer at box office while a heavy fiction without any rhyme or reason may earn millions world over.
The freedom of speech does not allow ‘pre-censorship’, except for movies. How can an administrative or political brain decide the ‘release’ of an expression to secure the ‘political’ stability? Only that medium, which is larger than life in size, light, sound and impact, is subject to scrutiny by politically appointed objective body of pre-certification. It is a contradiction that dynamics of expression in a democracy are being certified by a authoritative body for public release. But, for movies that is the law! If pre-censorship is imposed for other media, it will be nothing but ‘emergency’, that spells doom to democracy.
Nobody really knows if Padmavati existed, but all knew that thousands of women did atmaarpan for their self respect. An artistic visualisation of a fictional character either adopting or attacking the strong sentiments suffers the serious risk of resistance or box office failure equally. The film is yet to be released. It is not known what was so highly objectionable in that movie. The claims and counter claims are extremely juxtaposed to each other. One who watch the trailer cannot make out any distortion of history.
Rajput leader from Congress party, Sanjay Sinh opined that Bhansali should have contacted the Rana Udaipur’s family, from where Padmavati came, for actual historical facts before spending Rs 180 crore. He objected to showing of Padmavati dancing for Delhi Sultan Khilji, even in Khilji’s dream. He explained: “Khilji ultimately wanted a glimpse of Maharani Padmavati and she agreed to show her face in the mirror. She was ready to do this only because the act could save Udaipur and a massacre could be avoided. But she sent 13,000 Rajput warriors in palanquins instead of her entourage. All the brave Rajput warriors went down fighting against Khilji. Maharani Padmavati along with other Rajput women self-immolated themselves on their pyres”.
History is silent and legendary is inadequate. Fiction can fill the gap but not to widen the gaps in social structure. Freedom cannot be abused to destroy the culture, or to abet beheading of directors or cutting the noses of artistes. None can push society into crisis of public order for any reason.
