Submitted By: Aadhya Reji
We all know the famous Picasso of India, M.F. Husain. But how many of us knew that he left India due to numerous threats and harassments from the mob, accusing him of “offending religious sentiments” with his depictions of the Hindu deities? His case shows the clash between creative freedom and societal pressure on expression.
Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the freedom of speech and expression; this includes the right to exhibit one’s views through speech, writing, pictures or any medium. Article 19 (2) allows the government to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression when reviewed as a threat to bases like public order, security, decency, morality, contempt of court and so on.
Censorship laws are a set of regulatory laws that allow the authorities to suppress, control or prohibit any form of communication that can be deemed sensitive. Many terms in these laws, like ‘decency’ and ‘morality’, are broad and are subject to personalised interpretation to be marked as what is appropriate and what is not. When it comes to a ground where it is more than subjectivity and uninfluenced by the masses, it is where the enforcement of suppression can be aptly carried out.
Freedom of expression is a democratic pillar, but what happens when numerous acts teach us how to speak and what to speak? The Indian Constitution protects self-expression, yet persistently restricts it in application. To what lengths must restrictions be enforced?
“If censorship is the topic of debate, everything should be censored. Cinema should be a medium of entertainment. Displaying violence in the media influences young minds to alter their desired reality. It numbs some minds, making it seem normal, while swaying the rest to venture into it themselves,” says my mother.
The systemic issue lies in legal risks and public intimidation. Self-censorship, which means choosing to silence oneself to avoid drawing attention, is predominantly negative when attempting to do something and is practised by people from all sectors, including journalists and scientific researchers.
You probably censor yourself too in your day to day life, like journalists holding themselves back from publishing an article on an influential leader or a company because they fear law suits, withdrawal from sharing your opinion online because you fear getting attacked in the comments, being nervous about voicing out your disapproval because your boss wouldn’t like it, feeling timid about publishing your research findings because you don’t want too much attention or is too self aware of not being provided funding, and even getting cancelled for choosing what to follow, be it a religion or a party of choice.
The issue here is implied censorship. Self-censorship restricts artists and writers, most of whom believe that capitalism should never affect what they produce. And even if you were an artist who believed in capitalism, with this implied censorship, how often do you swear by choosing your voice with your art, and how seldom, even for a momentary pause, do you let the fear of getting cancelled prevent you from creating your craft?
This not only affects creative freedom but also the consumers of any art or media in which this self-censorship is imposed. They tend not to obtain a complete overview of a situation and lack a proper understanding of the broader issue, as evidenced by their failure to grasp what’s happening behind the scenes.
So, what level of censorship is good? Clearly defined and proven to have caused harm, which are applied after the demonstrated expression, not before it. Anything beyond that becomes control, even if wrapped in the name of protection. Wrong censorship leads to not choosing to release a film because of scenes that could be seen as controversial, cutting out parts of history in the classroom, banning books before they have reached overseas and read collectively, and sometimes even before that, rejecting manuscripts that are potentially risky.
This is harmful because it pushes the artists to take accountability for reactions that they have no control over. Our nation is constantly taking a step toward normalising fear. The safest option becomes silence, aka self-censorship, when the regulation is ill-defined and open to interpretation. Where do we see ourselves in the upcoming years? Having a bandana that covers our mouths, so that the stifling is also visual?
Let us know your thoughts. If you have burning thoughts or opinions to express, please feel free to reach out to us at larra@globalindiannetwork.com.
