A heated debate on a news channel today about the opposition to portrayal of anything that even slightly brushed existing religious sentiments in movies drove me to infer the following points:
- Such oppositions occur where the religious community in question constitutes a minority of the total population of the state.
It started off with one movie. Vishwaroopam. Though the censor board cleared it for release, a religious community protested. The release date in Tamil Nadu was pushed further and further away as the problem dragged on until the filmmaker agreed to remove certain scenes from the movie. The movie with the enormous amount of hype that preceded it has been cut, disfigured, and been stolen of its entirety. All the eager fans, waiting through all the exhausting drama, are now left disappointed. The important questions here are : Does the government have the power to exert its authority on a movie that the censor board has already approved? And why is the movie hurtful to the said community of this state alone while their counterparts in the other states don't have a problem with it? After all, religions don't alter with boundaries. A retired censor board member said during the debate that in his years on the board he had seen no protests to movies that even questioned the fundamentals of a religion in the neighbouring state Kerala. He attributed it to their progressive thinking. This made me think that the reason why the minority communities protest so vigorously in our state is not just because their thinking is backward but mainly because of their fear. Their fear of something in a movie causing people to forge a bad impression of the religion in their minds, their fear of the followers losing faith because of the views of a filmmaker, their fear that their dignity will be beaten. Yes, ours is a country that assures the fraternity of an individual. But the movie doesn't wound their dignity. If that were taken as reason, fiction couldn't exist for there are many ways for people to take offense. Cinema or any other mass media is not a tool to propagate any religion or faith. And as long as people don't look at it objectively, they're going to find reasons to protest.
This is not the first time an opposition has occurred and this won't be the last but what concerns me is that this will motivate more such oppositions. One has already sparked off 3 others. How long before one can actually make a movie at peace?
- Religious groups take every mention personally, be it in a book, movie, painting or any other expression of thought.
What is the meaning of freedom of expression when an artist cannot express himself/herself without his work being trampled with by others to suit them? The first step to creating art is not to create something that would be okay with the prospective audience. The first step is to put the thought from the artist's mind to paper. After that comes tweaking it to suit the audience so that they're unhurt by it. But there's a bar on it. The artist can't go on tweaking it until it is something that he barely identifies with. If we want artists, we need to appreciate them for what they produce for that is the reason we respect them. Subjecting them to stress and insecurity is not respect. There are objections to everything. An all-girl band? Fatwa. A painting a political party thinks hurts culture? Tear it down. And soon... freedom of expression? Second only to religious groups' approval.
All day and night
I labor
With all my might
To savor
With satisfaction
And elation
And elation
The appreciation
With much anticipation.
But I am left here
After all the wear
With an insult and a tear.
Dedicated to all artists.
