Is the freedom of speech, the freedom to say and the freedom to hear? Or is it only the freedom to say, but not hear? Or just the freedom to hear, but not express? Five unconnected events or acts over the last ten days say a lot more about our freedoms than any political exegesis that would quote Milton, Mill, and Marx. I have to begin, however, with the one that took up the most acreage and airtime.
The spectacle of a cabinet minister deciding whether to let a film go to the theatres and if so in what form was in keeping with the bathos that has come to characterize our politics.. Some questions need to be answered. If the film is deemed to be inappropriate for the people, why was the book allowed to be circulated freely? Is there any evidence to show that films have a greater impact than a book in the way people lead their lives and the belief systems that they espouse? Is the film going to make those who are devout Catholics veer from the path of the Lord because of suggestions made in the film? Is the film going to make those who believe in the greatness of Jesus, but not in his divinity, any less respectful following a viewing of this film? Is the film going to make much of a difference to any one who is already hostile to Catholicism or Christianity? Is the very act of a display that is contrary to accepted religious teaching enough to warrant censor? The last cannot be the case, or else all religious texts have to banned and while we are at it, let us add political tracts that espouse atheism or even agnosticism. As for the others we had the minister who sat and decided whether we, the dumb masses, would not be provoked, inflamed, persecuted, delighted, or beguiled by watching the film. But then we Indians have the singular privilege of our state banning a book, Satanic Verses, and a play, Mi Nathuram Godse Boltoy. ’Tis about time, a poem made the grade.
Just a while back the election commission decided in their wisdom that graffiti on walls that were put up by political parties, even on private buildings, ought to be removed. It was touching to read an old Marxist apparatchik defending private property and suggesting that forbidding the writing of graffiti on private property was patently unconstitutional. And how right he is on private property. It is not anyone, and I insist anyone including the election commission, to decide how I choose to use the walls of my home. As long as public decency and propriety are being maintained and I do not live in a gated community with its by-laws that I have signed on to, no one should be telling me that I cannot put some words of support for candidates or parties or political positions on my wall. But sometimes we are so enamoured of the role of agencies that put a check on errant practices by political parties that we ignore what is wrong and pig-headed. I am aware that political parties do not seek permission of private property owners before they plaster their walls. The redress for that may be with the election commission. Not blanket rules that act as prior restraint to free political speech.
Another decision that is part of the election code of conduct is also misplaced. The directive that political parties should curb their promises or not announce policies is predicated on the view that the electorate would be swayed by such promises. It only beggars imagination to think that after 55 years of elections with promises people would be gulled into believing the politicians. There should be no fetters on the freedom of speech allowed to politicians during the run-up to the elections. No commas, no full stops. Nothing shows a fool more clearly than the moment he or she opens the mouth. Let there be more promises so that people have a longer list by which to judge them. To think that the people of this country would be seduced with mere words is deeply condescending. It is paternalism writ large. And deeply offensive, too.
If such are the ways in which state provides for freedom of speech, what of those who are often at the forefront of protecting it. Two examples. One column and the other a piece of reporting. An eminent newspaper refuses to publish a column written by a media critic of long-standing with the paper. A quick web search reveals the editor is on record saying the father of the subject of the column was a friend. The editor goes on to say that the father was a man “who hated censorship and…rose above subjective feelings.” Some sites also say that the subject’s family and the publishers are related by marriage. Another eminent newspaper does not have a word to report about protests over a decision by a golf club. Such censoring when all other newspapers in town mention the protests, arrival of legislative assembly members on the scene, and other details. A web search reveals that the editor of the newspaper is closely associated with the club.
Both these cases are within days of a newspaper columnist who writes in both these newspapers taking umbrage at the excessive coverage of a slain politician and suggesting that those newspapers away from New Delhi are not as affected by seductions of power and the cult of personality. Good, honest, ethical journalism is not only about subdued coverage of dying or dead politicians. And corruptions of the press come in many forms. Presumably the cult of personality that extends to the person of the editor or the seduction of power that matrimonial alliances bring does not corruption of the press make.
