This week brought the news of cancellation of Carnatic vocalist and Magsaysay award winner TM Krishna’s concert after a motivated campaign by a driven cabal of self-proclaimed defenders of Indian tradition. They accused him of being anti-national, anti-Hindu and an ‘urban Naxal’ –terms used to describe people who oppose their worldview.

Last week brought the news that noted historian and writer Ramachandra Guha has been pulled out of teaching at Ahmedabad University after an ABVP campaign against him for being against ‘Indian culture’.

For the last three weeks, defence analyst Abhijit Iyer Mitra has been languishing in judicial custody in Odisha for a joke on Konark temple. When he pleaded to the Supreme Court for relief, Mitra was told the safest place for him was indeed jail. In each of these cases, it was a belief that online threats will escalate to real world violence.

These three seemingly unrelated cases are just a tip of the iceberg. They have come to the fore because they are in the space that gets picked up by influential English-language media. There are many other stories of similar nature from different parts of India and people not on the radar of mainstream media. At the core is not just TM Krishna, Guha, or Abhijit Iyer Mitra’s freedoms and safety from violence, it is about all of us being able to enjoy the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

In part, these cases are possible because of their ability to call for violence and perpetrate violence with little or no consequence. The Karni Sena shot to prominence because it was able to successfully unleash violence against the film Padmavat, including threatening to kill, decapitate and disfigure people associated with the film. Violent protests took part in multiple states as mute state governments watched and sometimes even colluded with the Karni Sena.

A mute state, a hapless police force and a political class that jumps on every bandwagon in the hope of scraping together a few votes has made it a dangerous place for freedom of speech and dissent against prevailing norms.

As India evolves and the Indian identity becomes the predominant identity for all of us who live here, there has been a backlash from various groups trying to assert their own identity. Be it the Karni Sena that objects to a film, or a group of Brahminical music lovers who see Carnatic music as their exclusive domain, or various Maratha groups that see Shivaji as their sole preserve – the tendency is not only to exclude any other view or interpretation but to respond to it with violence, and claim that those who were attacked are against India, Indian culture, and therefore, a fair game.

One of the reasons why these mobs are emboldened is in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). IPC Section 295a looks at “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs”. Section 298 looks at utterings, words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person. It has been used liberally to curtail the freedoms of people and harass them.

So, not only does the person exercising free speech has to worry about mobs attacking them, they also have to worry about the state charging them with crimes under sections 295a and 298. As long as these sections exist, the burden of proof is on those who assert their right to free speech and not on the mobs. The mobs will simply claim they were provoked.

Another part of the problem is the lack of spine of institutions including various government bodies. Unfortunately, there is no instant cure for this. The only thing that can help is the knowledge that the government will protect your Constitutional rights and penalise those who are trying to violate those rights. Successive governments have proven to be rather pusillanimous when it comes to dealing with mobs as mobs are much-needed vote-banks.

Art and culture arise from society and is a mirror to the society. Dissent is an integral part of who we are as a civilisation. In India, it has been possible to disagree with people without being disagreeable. India is about synthesis. About various streams, strands, and opinions giving rise to something completely different. What mobs don’t get is that in opposing certain expressions as un-Indian, they are going against the ethos of Indian culture.

In the 1960’s, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) organised a musical concert for famine relief in Pune. The foremost Hindustani Classical vocalist of the era Pandit Bhimsen Joshi was invited to perform. During the concert, he took a break and for close to 10 minutes, in chaste Marathi, gave a speech. He began by saying “I do this because I believe it is my duty to say this,” and in the course of the discourse, he gently chided the then Maharashtra government, took on traders, and the RSS.

He berated them, mocked all of them dispassionately as an artist holding a mirror to society, provoking the audience to think about uncomfortable questions and answers. After the speech, he continued with the concert. Maybe, it was the dynamics of the era or the belief that people could hold a view without being labelled ‘anti-Hindu’ or anti-Indian that nothing happened to Bhimsen Joshi. He got invited to even more concerts, honoured by the government, respected by the Sangh, and loved by the audience. No one labelled him, no one threatened his concerts, and there was a certain respect for this giant who spoke his mind.

Today, very few would take this risk. Because speaking out freely is a risk. One doesn’t know who will get offended and who will sue or beat you up. The only thing that you know is that the state will do nothing. And, it is this muteness of the Indian state is the single biggest problem in curtailing freedom of expression. Mobs are everywhere, mute states in fewer places. This is not about more legislation, regulating the online space, or even curtailing the liberty of those who want to protest against TM Krishna, Ramachandra Guha or Abhijit Iyer Mitra. It is about creating an environment where an artist can sing, a professor can teach, a defence analyst can crack jokes without wondering who is out to get them, and when will they be hurt.

It is not just about these three people. These forms of curtailing expression has an impact on all of us. The more we give way to mobs and their demands, the more their demands will increase. Until we are left with a singularly humourless, colourless, and melody-less universe that reflects the world of the mob.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

First Published:Nov 15, 2018 4:47 PM IST