Freedom of Expression or Societal Peace???

Buried in inner pages of today’s Times of India was a small news item, captioned, 'SC upholds ban on book against Islam'. It stated that the Hon’ble court has upheld Maharashtra Government’s ban on R V Bhasin’s "A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims". The two judge bench comprising of Justice P Sathasivam and Justice H L Dattu held that Bhasin’s Right to Freedom of speech, as guaranteed under the Constitution of the country was secondary to the need of maintaining peace in society.

The author of the book, Mr Bhasin had challenged Maharasthra Government's 2007 decision to ban the book, four years after its publication, on the ground that it perpetrated hatred against Muslims, promoted enmity between communities and on the apprehension that it would breach harmony in society.

At the first glance, there does not seem anything objectionable in the judgment passed by the court, which by itself was a reaffirmation of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court order upholding the ban on the book. Since the constitution has explicitly affirmed restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Speech and the fact that even instinctively, we all know that rights are not absolute makes the judgment seem completely logical and in the larger interests of society.

However, a little analysis of the facts of the case and a comparison of this present instance with court judgments / Government actions in similar cases can leave a person much discomforted on the arbitrariness behind judicial pronouncements and the posturing of ‘civil society’. The most recent of these is MF Hussain’s renouncing of his Indian Citizenship and the Muslim riots in Shimoga, ostensibly against writings of Taslima Nasreen. In the case of Hussain, the Hon’ble court has already dismissed a couple of cases against him, citing artistic license and freedom of speech. His supporters disingenuously point out that most of his controversial creations were 20 years old and that it is indeed the Hindi (emphasis added) magazine Vichar Mimansa, which is guilty of insulting Hindu deities as it had reprinted those paintings. Notice the similarity with Bhasin’s case.


Unlike in case of books like Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ or Ram Swarup’s ‘Understanding Islam through the Hadis’, which were banned almost immediately after their publication, the Government took four years to realize that it could disturb peace in society! By that logic, opponents of Hussain’s work, have all the more valid ground to agitate against Hussain. But yet again, only a couple of years back, the Delhi Tis Hazari court dismissed a petition seeking a ban on Swami Dayanand Saraswati’s ‘Satyarth Prakash’ for its criticism of Islam. In that instance, the court held that a book published more than 135 years back cannot be taken to be a threat to peace now.

In the case of Taslima Nasreen, FIRs were lodged against the Kannada newspaper Kannada Prabha’s publisher, the translator and Taslima herself for bringing a religion in disrespect and wilfully disturbing societal peace. Taslima anyways is controversy’s child. So, even at the time when she was physically attacked by MIM goons (including 3 MLAs) in Hyderabad in August, 2007, an FIR was lodged against her! The victim of a murderous attack!!

Then there is the ban on James Laine's, S'hivaji, Hindu King in Islamic India.' The book supposedly questions the legitimacy of Shivaji’s paternity and led to an attack on Pune’s Bhandarkar Institute. The ban followed the attack and was defended by the Maharashtra Government right till the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court dismissed the ban. The court judgment anyways became immaterial as the book was withdrawn from print in India altogether.

The only common theme which we can notice in all cases of bans are that such restrictions have been imposed only where there have been riots / demonstrations and / or damage to public property. Hence, protests against Hussain, which have been by and large peaceful and primarily restricted to legal and internet forum battles, have not seen any injunction against Hussain. At the same time, any book, cartoon or utterance, which can drive Muslims to paroxysms of rage, have been censored or banned. It is not the Islamists alone who are prone to get offended. The supposedly liberal Gandhian dispensation was apoplectic with the reception received by ‘Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoy’ and did not rest till the play was banned by the ‘Gandhi-murderer-organization (RSS) associate, the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’.

However, the ban on Mee Nathuram…, should not blind us to the fact that in spite of their protests where any person questioning Gandhi is not deemed patriotic enough (recollect the avalanche of rage when KS Sudarshan of RSS declared Gandhi to be a noble soul, but not the Father of the Nation), criticism of Gandhi and Nehru are considered acceptable even in today’s dangerously divided India. In fact, that ban becomes all the more sad when we remember that Supreme Court had, in 1969, stuck down a ban on Gandhi-hatya Ani Mee (Gandhi-assassination and I), by Gopal Vinayak Godse, brother of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin Nathuram Godse, even while accepting that the book did indeed glorify the murderers of Gandhi.

What is more worrisome is the growing tendency of the State to yield to hooliganism, particularly of the minority variety. It does not seem to take more than a few minutes for a couple of thousand of Muslims to assemble anywhere at anytime of the day and demonstrate against the numerous injustices being meted out on them. Only this demonstration is not peaceful and is always accompanies by riots, stoning, damage to public property and grievous injury (often fatal) to a few innocent bystanders. So, a caring Government and a judiciary, which wants to maintain public peace at all costs, is willing to abdicate its duty of being the enforcer of law, and succumbs to their demands. The same scenario being repeated, be it Mau, Azamgarh, Miraj, Burhanpur, Sangli, Murshidabad or Hyderabad. Lest it be assumed that this tendency is limited to Muslims alone, we must not ignore the fact that rising intolerance has become the mark of public discourse even in other communities. Remember the ban on the movie Da Vinci Code in Andhra Pradesh and some North Eastern states, when Indian States became probably the only governmental entities in the world to have banned the movie? That ban followed Government's fear that protests by hurt Christians could create a law and order problem. Punjab was rocked by violent protests against the attire of Dera Saccha Sauda's Ram Rahim for days altogether. Only last month, some alphabet book published in distant Mizoram became the crux of protest of Xtian hooligans in Punjab again, leading to arrest of the author and publisher of the book. No National newspaper has reported anything on the arrest of these hooligans who destroyed public property, so we can safely assume that none happened!

All along, we had been made to believe that while the lower courts judged on the facts of the case, the higher courts judged on provisions of the laws relating to the case. Sadly, that seems to be slowly getting diluted in cases where there seems to be a risk of violence by any affected party.  In this book's case, there weren't even any protests, merely the fear that there might be riots. I have not read the book and so don' t really know if it is actually offensive. Bhasin's book is supposedly based on analysis of Islamic scriptures. Logically, one would expect a scholarly rebuttal based on facts and not a blanket ban. I wonder if militant Hindutva votaries should take a leaf of their Islamic counterparts and be more aggressive and damaging in their protests. Should it start with Wendy Doniger's Hindus, An Alternative History?