Column

So it’s clear now. Don’t like a film, a book or a painting? Gather a few people, go out and throw a few stones and watch the government react. The film will be censored, the book proscribed and the painting taken off. If you can manage really high decibel levels (a media savvy face always helps) and your mob can burn a bus or two, then you might even manage to get the writer or painter themselves banned.

It’s a smart formula that many have managed to perfect. So much so that now even the implicit threat of violence can achieve the objective. Politicians quake at the mere possibility of crowds taking to the streets. Of course you may still want to go out and throw a brick or two and get your 8 seconds of fame as eager-beaver television reporters rush to you to get your soundbite. Make sure though that you put on your best angry face — reasoned arguments are out.

Look around to see the numerous examples of the efficacy of such a gamelan. Way back in the 1980s, when there were agitations against Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, India was the first country to ban it. It was one more of many books and films that had been banned in India, such as Nine Hours to Rama, a film on Gandhi’s assassination. The Rushdie case was the first time there were large scale global protests on one issue, and given the sensitivities of a large section of the population, it was considered prudent to nip the problem in the bud.

Such capitulations are always seen as weakness. Gandhi led a majority government; since then, the political landscape has changed and coalition formations have become common. Every party has an agenda and represents some section or the other. Annoying one or the other means losing their support which no government can afford. Voters and special interest groups have understood that and exploit it to the fullest. No one wants to annoy anyone, and when it comes to minority communities, all parties tread on egg-shells.

The proliferation of media has further complicated matters. A small group of naysayers turns magically into massive multitudes when shown in close up, on different television channels over and over again. This is nothing but manipulation, and it is being done intentionally, but without irony or a hint of any deeper understanding, by the news broadcasters. Viewers feel overwhelmed and politicians feel pressured. They perhaps know that the ones out raising slogans do not represent the true feelings of the community at large, but they do not want to take chances. So this reality show, which is really quite fake, assumes hyper-reality dimensions.

There are numerous examples of this in recent times. Take the case of MF Husain, India’s greatest living painter now spending his final years in exile. What exactly is the case against him? That he ‘offended’ the sensibilities of Hindus by painting Hindu goddesses in the nude. Another of his paintings, showing a woman as India, has also angered some people. Who are these people? No one really knows. It is obvious that they do not represent the country’s Hindus in any way. Yet, Husain is in danger and the government, instead of providing him with security or standing up to this kind of blatant thuggery, quietly advises him to stay away from the country.

Taslima Nasreen’s case is an even more shocking example of the pusillanimity of the authorities, in this case self-proclaimed upholders of human rights and secularism. She is living in India as a refugee because her life is in danger in her own country, Bangladesh. Her presence in India has upset many Muslims and especially hardcore fundamental groups, but they know that their protests will not get them very far.

But along comes a chance to blackmail an already shaken government, reeling under the violence in Nandigram. The hordes are mobilised, the brickbatting begins and before you can say Karl Marx, Taslima is ‘advised’ to get out. The CPM, so brave in killing a few unarmed villagers, simply crumbles in the face of the protests. Notch up another victory for the mob.

If the political class has shown its cowardice, the role of the intelligentsia has been even more curious. The liberal secularist is confused in the Taslima case —it is a matter concerning minorities after all. And there are enough (and not necessarily Muslim) intellectuals who are ready to say that if her presence arouses such passion and anger, the Indian government should reconsider her application for citizenship.

But surely the principle and not the person should matter. Taslima may be a poor writer or a publicity-seeker or even a provocateur — her fate cannot be decided by a mob of a few hundred who decide to hold a city to ransom. Ditto for Husain. Democracy is the will of the people, not that of the frenzied rabble. It is the job of the state to send this message out firmly and unambiguously.

Email: sidharth01@dnaindia.net