Freedom Of Expression In A Nation Of Fragile Sentiments: Are We Progressing Or Regressing?

The Indian Supreme Court recently had to rule on a question that is often on the minds of many Indians: at what point does the freedom of imagination end and the protection of public sentiments begin? The manner in which the court handled the case of Thug Life, compared to its handling of other recent cases involving comedians and creative work, indicates a disturbing trend of uneven application of the law and lack of consistent judicial reasoning. This would threaten the fundamental rights of artists in the world’s largest democracy.

When Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked the rhetorical question at the Thug Life hearing: “Because of this, should the movie be halted, or stand-up comedy halted or reading poems halted?“, he unintentionally pointed out the illogic of India’s current model for dealing with creative expression. His remark that “there is no end to hurt sentiments in India” summarizes the phenomenon of a problem that started as sporadic incidents but has evolved into an institutional undermining of artistic liberty.

The Anatomy of a Manufactured Crisis In Searching Freedom

The controversy regarding Thug Life began with what could have been a routine occurrence. Kamal Haasan, a Tamil cinema actor-director and an established figure in the cinema world, made the comment that “Kannada was born out of Tamil.” This comment on languages would have resulted in an academic debate on the evolution of Dravidian languages. It resulted in a concerted effort by Kannada pro-groups to prevent the film from being released in Karnataka. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce demanded an apology, and that cost the filmmakers an estimated ₹5 crore.

What is most insightful about this incident is not only the outsized reaction to Haasan’s remark, but the machinery of institutions that moved into high gear to justify what was in effect economic blackmail. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, an organization that ought to guard the interests of cinema, became the enforcer of a linguistic orthodoxy that would not tolerate dissent. The state government, officially keeping up the fiction that there had been no ban, let the de facto prohibition stand through inaction.

The intervention of the Supreme Court was a welcome one, but it meant that the courts step in to protect creative freedom. The judges, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan, were right in saying that “showing a film that was approved by the CBFC cannot be stopped because of protests.” But the fact that such intervention was requested means that mob censorship is becoming the rule of the day in Indian society.

The Comedy Club as Battleground

The Kunal Kamra controversy indicates the extent to which political sensitivities have come in the way of creative expression. During his stand-up act, Kamra referred to Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde as a “traitor” as part of his political satire. This had the police investigating and the Habitat comedy club where the show was being shot was vandalized. The controversy indicates that comedy, which has always been employed to ease social and political tension, has become a delicate ground for comedians now who have to steer clear of a lot of sensitive issues.

The response to Kamra’s action was swift and united. Employees of the Shinde government’s Sena attacked the Habitat comedy club, and several FIRs were registered against the comedian. The arrest of twelve of the attackers, who were let out on bail the same day, indicates a disturbing trend of citizens taking the law into their own hands, wherein threats of violence are acceptable as a response to criticism.

Deputy Chief Minister Shinde’s response to the scandal showed how differently free speech is treated in India today. He replied, “Freedom of speech is there” and “We understand satire,” but went on to add that “there should be a limit.” He likened the comedian’s performance to “taking ‘supari’ (contract) to speak against someone.” This speech claiming to defend free speech while questioning its application has now become the typical response from politicians to offendable art.

Historical Echoes of Censorship

The prevailing attitude of selective outrage is not novel to Indian history, but it is a qualitative change in the sense of scale and organized form. The censorship of Indian drama and literature by the colonial British state, though repressive, was at least honest about its purpose. Post-independence saw several attempts to curb artistic freedom, ranging from the banning of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” to the furies against M.F. Husain’s paintings, but these were usually individual one-off incidents and not part of a systemic trend.

The situation is quite different now due to the way censorship has evolved. Formerly, censorship was provided by governments. Today, censorship is provided by numerous groups who believe they should be the ones to determine what can and cannot be expressed in public. This has resulted in the bizarre scenario where India’s democratic liberties are being eroded not by authoritarian regulations from the government but by the democratic principle that the majority should rule.

The 1988 controversy that surrounded the movie “Tamas,” which addressed the partition of India, is a revealing instance. Despite various community groups protesting, the movie was telecast. This indicates that there was once great support for creative freedom that we no longer have. Likewise, the 1995 film “Bombay” that addressed community riots had protests but did not endure the same sort of routine economic boycott that we see today.

The Samay Raina Paradox

The Supreme Court response to the Samay Raina case, in which the comedian was criticized for some remarks, complicates the free speech issue. The court’s observation that the episode was “problematic” indicates that it is not averse to exploring what is permissible in comedy. This is a significant departure from the typical reluctance of judges to intervene in controlling content, and there is doubt regarding the intensity with which the court supports creative freedom.

The disparity between the court’s strong protection of film exhibition rights in the Thug Life case, and its sensitive handling of comedy material, reveals a rising hierarchy of creative expression. In this hierarchy, different kinds of art are afforded different levels of protection. Such a handling goes against the essential premise that creative liberty is not to be made dependent on the content or the form.

The Parliament Paradox

The article addresses such inciting comments in Parliament, with stark incongruity in India’s approach to free speech. Parliamentarians have such broad protection for what they say within the Parliament, while artists, comedians, and filmmakers are not afforded that kind of protection when they say something in public. The said incongruity is of great concern regarding who can speak truth to power and under what circumstances.

Evidently, individuals are outraged only about certain things when we consider how little public or judicial response there typically is to inflammatory rhetoric by politicians outside Parliament. This disparity in response indicates that the notion of “hurt sentiments” is differently invoked based upon who is doing the speaking and how politically convenient the outrage is.

The Digital Amplification Effect

The current era of creative censorship is, to a great extent, facilitated by social media. Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube have created a platform where anger can be created, disseminated, and monetized within a relatively brief time after the launch of a creative output. The Thug Life scandal, for instance, snowballed under hashtags and viral videos that transformed a controversy over a local language into a national phenomenon.

This internet amplification has changed the conditions under which money is earned in art. Producers, distributors, and exhibitors now need to take into account not only the quality or marketability of a piece, but also its “controversy quotient” and the potential for a strong negative response on the internet. This has led to the situation where the avoidance of some topics becomes a business necessity and not a personal choice.

The Tarak Mehta Parallel

This reminds us to a reference of “Tarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah” where dispute of languages on notice boards’ message indicates a reference to wider issues of culture and multiple languages. While the approach of the sitcom to dealing with issues of language may appear trivial in comparison to film censorship and acts of violence in comedy clubs, it indicates the same underlying clash between pluralistic expression and the sensibilities of the majority.

The success of the series in tackling such sensitive issues in light satirical and humorous ways is a good model for creatives today to emulate. But it also opens up the question of whether art should always be safe and never inflammatory. The notion that comedy must be “safe” and not inflammatory does not appreciate the real function of humor as a tool to tackle social issues and politics.

One of the most disturbing features of censorship culture today is how it has bred perverse economic incentives. Groups and institutions have found that issuing threats of boycotts and protests can be an economical means of getting apologies, concessions, or money out of creative professionals. The ₹5 crore loss said to have been suffered in the Thug Life scandal indicates the actual economic cost of manufactured outrage.

This economic consideration turns creative censorship from mere ideological concern into a form of extortion. With the knowledge that a single incendiary comment or sequence can cost creators huge amounts of money, creatives take more cautious methods of producing content. The result is not only the halting of individual pieces but also the general diminishment of creative expression across the board.

International Comparisons and Constitutional Questions

If we compare India to other nations, we can raise significant questions about how devoted India remains to the values of its constitution. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution grants citizens the freedom to speak and express themselves, but it is subject to “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2). Nowadays, it appears that what constitutes “reasonable” has expanded to encompass virtually any assertion of offended feelings, regardless of how solid the assertion, or the degree to which free expression must be preserved.

Well-established democracies will move to protect creative expression. They understand that if democratic discourse is to be healthy, it will need strong protection for offensive or hard speech. The First Amendment to the United States does not apply directly to India, but it teaches us that “offensive” speech will need most protection because that is the kind of speech people will try to stifle.

The Institutional Response Gap

It is surprising that there are not many concrete groups that are actively fighting for freedom of creativity. Individual judges, like Justice Bhuyan, have very aptly spoken about the importance that creative freedom carries, but there has been no concrete institutional reaction to the burgeoning issue of creative censorship. The Central Board of Film Certification, whose role is to protect certified content, has remained conspicuously quiet regarding illegal prohibitions. Professional guilds of writers, directors, and actors have not remained quiet as well.

This institutional silence offers an opportunity for mob censorship to flourish. In the absence of loud institutional voices declaring the value of creative freedom and the danger of complying with each wounded feelings complaint, solo artists have to fend off concerted pressure alone.

Drawing Lines in Sand

The most important question that these events bring up is where, if at all, should limits be placed on creative expression. That the article speaks of controversies around the representation of the army in web series indicates that this question is vastly complex. Certain expressions can certainly be regarded as harmful or wrong, but the existing system lacks a clear way of determining that.

The issue is not that restrictions on expression are bad in and of themselves, but that our system allows nearly any group to claim to be offended and demand restrictions. That allows the most easily offended to have the ability to regulate what everyone else gets to say. A functioning democracy requires mechanisms to distinguish genuine concern about harming expression from simple dislike of unpopular views.

To move forward, we must acknowledge that the course we are on cannot be sustained. A society where comedians are interrogated by police for political jokes, where films are censored for profanity, and where comedy clubs are broken into because they show challenging material is a society gone astray. The words of the Supreme Court in the Thug Life case give some basis for a better course, but turning the words into good legal and social action takes persistent effort.

The solution is not to compromise free speech or the protection of feelings but to develop improved means of reconciling these various values. This will require strong leadership from judges, institutional reform, and, most importantly, a cultural shift towards allowing different disagreement and argument.

The stakes are extremely high. In a more polarized world, India’s continued democracy depends in part on its capacity to safeguard variegated opinion and unpopular ideas. The selective outrage culture and mob censorship challenge both solitary creators as well as the broader objective of democratic debate.

Justice Bhuyan pointed out that no end to hurt feelings appears to be present in India. The question then is whether Indian society will allow this reality to circumscribe creative freedom as well. The response will not merely decide the fate of Indian cinema, comedies, and literature, but even the health of Indian democracy.