Revision as of 05:44, 18 November 2017

Artists

Harassment

No end to persecution of artists

From the archives of The Times of India 2010

Dhananjay Mahapatra

Persecution is older than history. It is probably as old as civilization. Every period in history is replete with instances of persecution, mainly aimed at hindering free expression of ideas.

In India, artists and authors continue to suffer for giving wings to their expression. M F Husain is the latest to join the long list. Numerous talented Indians have become NRIs but no one attracted as much attention as Husain did after being conferred the honorary citizenship of Qatar.

He symbolizes persecution at the hands of a few intolerant zealots and, unfortunately, the governments and courts have done precious little to give a sense of security to this celebrated painter, who has been conferred all three Padma awards and had been once nominated to the Rajya Sabha.

Probably, he would have loved to live with his paintings in an era when the temples at Konark and Khajuraho were built. Those were the times when freedom of expression reigned supreme.

Sadly, the governments have mainly been silent spectators to the persecution of writers, authors and artists. Frustratingly, they even registered cases against them to assuage the feelings of violent protesters. It is the Supreme Court which has always spoken out boldly against such mindless hounding of artists and authors by mobs blinded by religion and culture.

K A Abbas faced the wrath of the censor board in 1971 for his documentary ‘‘A Tale of Four Cities’’, which attempted to portray the contrast between the lives of rich and poor in the four metros. It also contained fleeting shots of Mumbai’s red-light area, which the censor board thought should be edited out. And despite the cuts, the film was given Adults Only certificate. When Abbas moved the apex court seeking U certification for his documentary, the government made a U-turn and agreed to the demand. But the SC went on to make scathing remarks about the super-sensitivity of the censor board members.

It said, ‘‘If Nadir Shah made golgothas of skulls, must we leave them out of the story because people must be made to view a historical theme without true history?’’ This remark could well have served as the defence for Bhisham Sahni’s powerful novel ‘‘Tamas’’, later made into a TV-series, which vividly depicted Hindu-Muslim and Sikh-Muslim tensions just before Partition and how it culminated in killings and looting in Lahore prior to Independence. Petitions were filed in the Bombay high court and the Supreme Court seeking a ban on its telecast in 1987.

Both the HC and the apex court were unanimous that the TV-serial was not to be banned. In its 1988 judgment [Ramesh Chotalal Dalal vs Union of India], the SC quoted the standard laid down by celebrated judge Vivian Bose in the case of Bhagwati Charan Shukla in 1947. Justice Bose had said, ‘‘The effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.’’ Applying this standard, the Supreme Court said telecast of Tamas was not going to hurt sentiments, but could help educate people not to repeat the past.

Courts, superior: verdicts of

SC: Courts should be extremely slow in curbing artistic freedom

Dhananjay Mahapatra, SC tells courts: Be extremely slow to curb artistic freedom, November 17, 2017: The Times of India

‘Thought-Provoking Film Need Not Be Puritanical’

The Supreme Court said that courts must be “extremely slow” to interfere with artistic freedom in works like films and rejected a plea to ban the November 17 release of a film, ‘An Insignificant Man’, based on the life of AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud appeared to rebut violent elements protesting against the release of Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s film ‘Padmavati’ when it said: “A thought-provoking film does not mean it should be puritanical. A film has to be expressive to provoke the conscious and subconscious mind of a viewer.” Last week, the court had dismissed a petition seeking a stay on the release of Padmavati, saying it was an issue squarely within the adjudication domain of the Central Board of Film Certification and the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal.

The bench said: “The courts should be extremely slow in passing any kind of restraint or order stopping a creative man from writing drama, a book, philosophy or projecting his thoughts in a film or theatre art.” It disposed of the petition relating to ‘An Insignificant Man’ while clarifying that the trial court would decide the case on merit.The film was objected to by Nachiketa Walhekar, who is facing trial for allegedly throwing ink at the AAP chief in 2013. His counsel said the film incorporated electronic media recordings of the alleged incident to project Kejriwal as a victim, and hence violated his client’s right to a fair trial.

Apex court: Right to freedom of speech sacrosanct

He said filmmakers should either delete the TV footage from the film or put a bold disclaimer about the alleged offence being under the scrutiny of a court.The bench refused to heed these arguments and remained focused on its respect for the right to free speech and expression. The CJI said, “It is worthy to mention that right to freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct and should not be ordinarily interfered with. When the CBFC has granted permission for the release of the film after scrutiny, this court should exercise utmost restraint in not granting any injunction.”

Given the vulnerability of writers, authors, filmmakers and novelists at the hands of dogmatic groups capable of violently airing disagreement with artistic expression, it said, “Be it noted that any film, drama, theatre or novel is a creation of artistic expression. An artist has freedom to express himself/ herself in a manner which is not prohibited in law.” SC went a step further and said even the prohibitive areas of freedom of speech and expression, specified under Article19(2) of the Constitution, could not be a ground to kill artistic creativity. “Such prohibition is not meant to crucify the right of an expressive mind,” it said. “History of the world records there are authors who expressed thoughts by choosing words, phrases and expressions to create characters who may look very different than what an ordinary man can conceive. A thought-provoking film does not mean it should be in every way puritanical.”

Facebook

`Over 5,800 pieces of content blocked on govt request between July & Dec 2014'

The Times of India

2014: Data and censorship requests made by India and some other countries to Facebook

Mar 17 2015

Kim Arora

Facebook blocked 5,832 pieces of content in India on government request between July and Dec last year. In its Global Government Requests report released on Monday, it confirmed some of the content restricted was antireligious and those likely to cause unrest. “We restricted access in India to content reported primarily by law enforcers and the India Computer Emergency Response Team within the ministry of communications and IT,“ the report said.

India stands second after the US in a list of countries for the number of government requests to Facebook during this period. The company didn't specify the nature of requests but a BJP official said most of them dealt with concerns over national security. In the first half of 2014 too, India held the same rank.

Between July and December 2014, India made 5,473 requests referencing 7,281 accounts. US topped with 14,274 requests, referencing 21,731 accounts but Facebook reported no content curbs. Facebook produced “some data“ (basic subscriber details) in 44.7% of Indian requests. The percentage for the US stood at 79.1%. The third largest number of requests, 2,366, came from the UK referencing 2,890 accounts and three restrictions. India is Fa cebook's second-largest market after US and Canada with 118 million monthly active users and 300 million Net users.

Explaining the curbs, BJP IT cell convener Arvind Gupta said the number of requests and content restricted is a function of the number of users. “Facebook users in the country have grown.India is the second biggest market for Facebook. These numbers should be seen in this context,“ he said, adding, “About 30% of requests from India are responded to.“ Fact is, the US has no curbs that FB reported despite making the maximum requests.

In a co-written blog , Facebook's head of global policy management Monika Bickert wrote that globally , content restricted for violating local law had increased by 11% over the first half of 2014. In his Facebook post co-founder Mark Zuckerberg said they must respond to government requests because if they don't and if that results in service being blocked, user “voices would be muted“.

The consolidated figures barely represent the real picture, experts say . “We'd like more information...on content taken down, who those requests come from, their decision-making process.Transparency is important at government and company level if we have to fight censorship,“ says Mishi Choudhary , legal director, Software Freedom Law Center.

Sunil Abraham of Bengaluru's Centre for Internet and Society , too, says there's much the report hides. “The India data doesn't clarify if the content curbs come from the Centre, states, police, courts or authorities under Sec 69A (IT Act),“ he said.

Theatre

Bombay Police Act: “pre-censorship“ of plays

Rosy Sequeira, `Pre-censorship' of plays to go on in Maha, Sep 14, 2017: The Times of India

Bombay high court refused to stay an amendment to the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which makes “pre-censorship“ of plays mandatory in Maharashtra. But the high court expedited final hearing of a petition by actor Amol Palekar challenging validity of a section of the Act under which the police commissioner framed rules in 1973 requiring that all theatre performances be scrutinised by the Maharashtra State Performance Scrutiny Board. The court posted the hearing in December, sought the state's reply, saying “at this stage, we do not find it appropriate to stay the impugned Act and rules“.