There are those rare cases in which the judiciary startles us with its lucidity and supremely level-headed judgment. One such pleasantly surprising moment came this week when the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the state government’s order that prohibited the screening of The Da Vinci Code. We all know the basic issue that has made this film controversial. We also know the almost clockwork regularity with which certain people, perhaps seeking their 15 minutes of fame, come out of the woodwork against a film or a book or a painting that has supposedly hurt the sensibilities of a section of society they apparently represent. On each occasion, the liberal lot — most visibly represented by the English language media — talk about artistic freedom and individual rights. But somehow, because of the pre-conceived notion that these liberals are out of touch with ‘Real India’ and its inhabitants, the same genre of whines and protest recur over and over again.
In a 48-page judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has stated what is fundamentally wrong with a government kowtowing to pressures of ban-seeking groups. The court first reminded that The Da Vinci Code had been cleared by the Censor Board with appropriate conditions. After that, there was no need to seek a gag on the film. It carefully explained that a film was “not like a billboard or hoarding that involuntarily affected innocent passersby”. Those who purchased tickets to see the film made a “conscious decision”, and the State has no role to stop the screening. To drive home the point, the court also imposed costs on the Andhra government for resorting to “irresponsible action”.
In India, there is a tendency of the State being used as a synonym for society. While society gets a short shrift in the process, the individual who forms society gets an even shorter shrift. The idea of individuality — seen almost as a vice — has been encouraged to be swamped by the idea of groupings and lobbies and community groups. At the basis of any art form or creative work lies the notion of the communion of the creator, an individual, with the viewer, also an individual. Instead of firming up this integral link that lies at the heart of culture, the State continues to play an unnecessary and retrogressive ‘mai-baap’ role that it has picked up and perfected from colonial rulers in the past. So the State’s role should be to protect freedom of expression (and observation), not to curtail it.
The court reminded the government that “the Constitution does not confer or tolerate such individualised hyper-sensitive private censor intrusion into and regulation of guaranteed freedom of others.” Governments — both in the states and at the Centre — should remember this and stop behaving like Calvinists who refuse to believe in free will. All Indians, surprising as it may seem to many representatives of the State, are not children and actually do have a mind of their own.
{{/usCountry}}The court reminded the government that “the Constitution does not confer or tolerate such individualised hyper-sensitive private censor intrusion into and regulation of guaranteed freedom of others.” Governments — both in the states and at the Centre — should remember this and stop behaving like Calvinists who refuse to believe in free will. All Indians, surprising as it may seem to many representatives of the State, are not children and actually do have a mind of their own.
{{/usCountry}}