No thug life moment for film releases

Filmmakers in India are vulnerable to mob action when they engage with subjects that deal with history and identity.

Thug Life, the Kamal Haasan-starrer, is set for a theatre release in Karnataka after the Supreme Court observed that mobs can’t decide if a film certified by the Central Board of Film Certification should have a public screening. A day after the Court’s strong words on the matter, protestors said they will accept the Court’s wisdom. Earlier, pro-Kannada outfits insisted they would allow the screening of Thug Life in the state only after Haasan apologised for his remark that Kannada was derived from the Tamil language. Kannada scholars contend that Kannada and Tamil are sister languages.

The fact is those uncomfortable with a film have the freedom not to watch it but have no right to disrupt its public exhibition once cleared by a State agency. (PTI)

The apex court wisely stayed out of the language debate and rightly framed the issue as one of free speech. First, it stated that the rule of law must prevail and mobs and vigilante groups cannot be allowed to impose their will. Second, it took objection to the Karnataka High Court, which held that the situation was of Haasan’s making and he should have apologised. The apex court’s remark that “it is not the business of the court to seek apology from anybody just because he’s expressed a view” should henceforth guide both the lower judiciary and public officials, who often prefer to side with the populist, majoritarian or conservative viewpoint on matters involving the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Filmmakers in India are vulnerable to mob and vigilante action, especially when they engage with subjects that deal with history and identity. Films including Padmaavat (2018), Haasan’s own Vishwaroopam (2013), and Jodhaa Akbar (2008) and artistes associated with these productions have faced the threat of physical violence and bans by caste and communal groups that claimed these works (even before they were completed or screened) distorted their collective identity and lineage. The fact is those uncomfortable with a film have the freedom not to watch it but have no right to disrupt its public exhibition once cleared by a State agency. This due process can’t be compromised: Any disruption would result in anarchy and the denial of Constitutional freedoms to artistes.