SELECTED ARTICLES FROM VARIOUS NEWSPAPERS & JOURNALS
(January 2014)
Institutionalising Freedom
India has repeatedly seen incidents where the screening of
films, certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, has been halted.
Extremist groups threaten public order, and claim community ‘sentiments’ have
been ‘offended’. Rather than take on such forces, State governments have
oftencaved in, unwilling to invest political and administrative capital in the
protection of the freedom of expression. Earlier this year, in the wake of the
controversy over the ban o n Vishwaroopam , the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting set up a committee under Justice Mukul Mudgal to revisit the entire
legislative framework. The report has now been made public. It recommends a new
procedure for appointments to advisory panels, which actually view films. It is
on the basis of their recommendations that the board issues certification.
Unfortunately, membership to such panels is often distributed as political
patronage. For certification, the committee has adopted two guiding principles —
“protection of artistic and creative freedom,” and remaining “sociallyresponsible
and sensitive to values and standards of society.” But the danger is that
such phrases can be used to stifle free speech.
But it is with regard to the government’s power to ban films
that the committee comes up with a new set of recommendations. It upholds the
principle that exhibition of a film already certified shall not be suspended.
This is in line with the landmark 1989 judgment in the case of S. Rangarajan v
Jagivan Ram involving the film, Ore Oru Gramathile , where the Supreme Court
laid down that “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat
of demonstration and processions or threats of violence.” The committee also
concludes that the Central government is the “sole repository of legislative
power and executive action” regarding exhibition of films. In instances where a
public exhibition “leads to a breach of public order” or can potentially do so,
the Centre can — the committee suggests — order the suspension of the
exhibition. While allowing such orders, the committee makes the point that it
has inserted additional caveats. It has taken away the power from State
governments the power to ban films. It has stipulated that film producers be
given an opportunity to explain their side of the story first. Such orders, it
says, are justified only in the case of threats to “public order,” not merely
“peace.” It should be passed only after public screening and not prior to
intended screening. It has also expanded the jurisdiction of the Film
Certification Appellate Tribunal. While the committee appears to invest
excessive faith in the Centre’s judgment and willingness to stand up to
extremist forces, the recommendations are
positive and a step towards institutionalising freedom and checking unwarranted
censorship.
Rediscovering Patel
In the past few days, political parties have vied with each
other to lay claim to the political legacy of India’s first Home Minister,
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and to build their own partisan narratives around the
beliefs that are thought to have defined him. As elections approach, the
re-imagining of Patel as one of India’s strongest leaders is clearly intended to
shore up the images of the respective leaders invoking his memory. The Congress,
led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself, has claimed ownership of Patel on
the ground that essentially, he was a loyal Congressman. The Bharatiya Janata
Party under Narendra Modi has not just recast Patel in its own image but has
sought to project a historically unsound thesis that there was a divide between
the two greats of pre- and post- Independence India — Patel, and the first Prime
Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The historical record is quite to the contrary.
