Tamil Nadu ban on Dam 999 shows lack of maturity
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek and receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
— Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948)
The row between Kerala and Tamil Nadu over the 117-year-old Mullaperiyar dam has entered the celluloid dimension with the latter on Thursday banning Dam 999, a movie that is woven around the collapse of a 100-year-old dam.
The Tamil Nadu government has banned the controversial movie saying it was against the interests of the State, after political parties, including the DMK, raised the pitch against its release. Theatre owners in the State had on Wednesday decided not to screen controversial movie. The opponents of the movie contend that it is based on the Mullaperiyar dam and the release of the movie will create panic and promote animosity between the people.
One wonders what happens to the artistic freedom as well as the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. This is not the first instance where whims and fancies of the political class and interest groups have tried and succeeded in stifling voices of dissidence or difference.
Clause (2) of Article 19, added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, defines the grounds on which restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression may be imposed. According to this amendment, public order signifies "that state of tranquillity which prevails among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the government which they have established.”
Now, who has the time to lose their tranquillity over some movie? No one is forcing the public to watch any movie. If a movie is an affront to their feelings, it will become a dud at the box office. There is no need for political vigilantes to protect the sensitivities of the public (who are mature enough to drive, vote, drink and marry) from getting disturbed.
Six decades have passed since we attained independence from colonial yoke. However, the restrictions introduced by the white masters to keep the large populace enslaved is still popular, albeit in different forms and for different purposes.
Authors, artists, film-makers, social activists face the ire of those with vested interests who wants to retain their stranglehold over their traditional support bases by any means possible — even through populist measures that proclaim dearth of grey matter. The disgrace and embarrassment of a great artist such as MF Husain breathing his last in exile hasn't taught us anything.
Groups who are in power and those who aspire for it always tend to discover causes that need their intervention. For this, a pressing problem has to be created for the “knight in shining armour” to enter the scene riding on the popularity stallion to slay the evil opponents.
Today one can't throw a stone in this country without hitting a civil society activist (and it's likely that the same stone will rebound and hit a human rights activist). From the anti-graft icon who wants to flog tipplers to the Delhi top cop who blamed the rape victims' dress for their situation, every T, D and H has their share of opinions.
If Anna Hazare is not prosecuted for suggesting violence, if leaders in different hues of saffron and green can tell mass gatherings that the “other” group need to be crushed and can still become legislators and ministers, then why target a film-maker?
Our right to state and propagate our ideas rests on the foundation of tolerance from everybody else. When we forget that and deny that right to someone else, we are setting the bottle spinning — you never know when you will be at the receiving end.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Voltaire
