The politics of hurt sentiments

Is censorship good? Wait, dear reader, do not recoil in horror. Think about it. Of course not, you say? Well then why is it necessary to have a film censor board in this day and age? Especially if it is not going to be honoured anyway.

Censor Board Chief Leela Samson has quit because she believes the board is not being honoured. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had refused to release the film MSG: Messenger of God, showcasing the curious talents of the flamboyant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, Dera Saccha Sauda chief, where he apparently presents himself as some kind of god. (In real life this guru has serious criminal charges against him, reportedly including mass castration, rape and murder.)

It was controversial, there were massive protests against the film by Sikh organisations, the board was worried and refused to clear it. It was also concerned about the glorification of this controversial guru, and felt MSG was more a long advertisement for Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh than a feature film. Never mind what the censor board felt. MSG went up to the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal under the ministry of information and broadcasting, which instantly cleared the film. With cuts, they clarified hastily, as Samson stepped down.

Anyway, we return to the question of whether censorship is good or bad. Isn’t trying to protect sensitivities and sentiments a good thing? In fact, isn’t it a necessity in a deeply multicultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-everything country like ours? Not really, we could leave it to the good sense of people, and not restrain free speech. Films that could hurt sentiments should be avoided, even boycotted, but not canned. But is that enough? What about the threat of violence? What are the limits of free speech?

Whether there is a censor board or not, in a culture of fear and intimidation, self-censoring has become the norm. But is that bad? Are we not taught to be decent, not to hurt others, not to be rude and insulting? Why is “self-censorship” bad, but “self-restraint” good?

Fear is the key, I guess. Anything arising out of fear restricts our freedom, and is thus bad. But self-censorship for reasons of political correctness is not. That is being polite. That’s good. In fact, exercising too much free speech may get you branded as a racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe, anti-semite, whatever. You need to be careful as you go down clearly marked lanes of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour picking your way through well-labelled sentiments. You know the good from the bad.

The trouble begins when you are not in that clearly marked zone. That’s when you need to protect free speech, when you need to claim that free speech includes the right to offend. How free can you be if you are not allowed to speak up for fear of offending the powerful? You must have the right to object, to protest, to criticise, to point out, to deride, to laugh at the emperor in new clothes.

Which, for me, determines the need and limits of free speech. In a civilised world, we do not really have the right to deliberately strike out and offend the disempowered or the less powerful, unless there is very good reason to do so. On the other hand, just because you belong to a less powerful group — usually a minority religion or lower caste, in our case — doesn’t give you the right to object to anything that you may not like. And claiming to be offended has become a political tool to stifle creativity and scholarship, the latest victim being Tamil writer Perumal Murugan. But this politics of hurt sentiments is best played by the majority community, by the big and powerful. Thanks to their unflagging spirit, we have witnessed the shameful defeat of free speech for years, from M.F. Husain to Wendy Doniger.

Of course, critiquing or laughing at religion and its paraphernalia can be tricky. But it can be handled smartly, sensitively, with empathy. So I could be a devout Hindu and not be offended by the film PK. It makes fun of corrupt godmen and ridiculous rituals, it does not attack the core tenets of Hinduism and other religions. Or it could be handled mindlessly. And I do not have to be a Muslim to be offended by some of the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo published. Some of the cartoons seemed pointlessly hurtful, obscene and unfunny.

While there can be no alternative to defending free speech and condemning the dastardly killings at the Charlie Hebdo office, there may also be a case in general for decency and some introspection. After all, why do we need freedom? Perhaps, to make life better for us and others like us. Is free speech an end in itself? Maybe. In the realm of philosophy. But in the real world, maybe we need to look at freedom of speech and expression as a means to a more equal, more just, more harmonious world.

Which is why political correctness is so hot. But again in our enthusiasm, we stretch it from the sublime to the ridiculous. We never seem to know where to draw the line. Take the current hullabaloo over the guidelines by Oxford University Press telling writers of their educational books to avoid words like pig and pork because it could hurt Muslim sensitivities. Is it absurd? Certainly seems like it. Is it shocking? Well, actually, no. Once you start walking on eggshells you lose sight of everything else.

Besides, this is not a new directive. For years educational publishers have been asking their authors to be kind and gentle to their readers, and avoid anything that may upset them. Since these readers are spread across many cultures possibly in many countries, the text needs to be strictly sanitised and homogenised. So “PARSNIP” is taboo. Which means, educational publishers give their authors a list of taboo topics like “PARSNIP”, which stands for politics, alcohol, religion, sex, narcotics, isms and pork. By “isms” they mean stuff like communism or atheism. Some publishers also ask their authors to avoid controversial figures and topics. And between the left liberal political correctness and the more traditional, right-leaning demands, these students get a pretty bland, safe and rather small slice of life to study.

Perhaps we need to take a hard look at censorship and free speech in the clear light of reason and empathy.

The writer is editor of The Little Magazine