SC’s nod to creativity

THERE is no place for cultural chauvinism in a democracy, and certainly not in a pluralistic country like India. The Supreme Court has rightly stayed the ill-conceived ban by a handful of states on the release of the film Padmaavat and also restrained other states from entertaining similar thoughts. The Supreme Court has all but read the riot act to states taking shelter behind the imperatives of maintaining law and order. The first and foremost duty of a state is to protect lives and guard the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of its people, it pointed out.     

Interestingly, some states actively campaigning for a ban on the movie are themselves known failures in controlling anti-social elements. Haryana is the forerunner. The Khattar government stood aside during the Jat agitation and came off with its reputation in shreds during the Dera Sacha Sauda and Rampal incidents. The law and order situation, especially crimes against women, in other states clamouring to ban Padmavaat is also not worth writing home about. These states need to worry more about the dignity of the real-life Padmavatis and give a short shrift to the still-ruffled emotions of fringe organisations like the Karni Sena even after the filmmakers bent over backwards in accommodating them by renaming the film and making numerous cuts.   

The bandwagoning by states also does a disservice to the institution, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which permitted an extended round of consultations. The state’s first reflex after this should be to protect creative rights rather than issue gag orders. Madhya Pradesh, in particular, went overboard in courting the fringe elements by issuing an edict that criminalised the playing of the movie’s songs. The Supreme Court will hear the matter after more than two months. By then the film’s fate would have been decided where it matters — at the turnstiles. But it is a sign of the times that a cinematic adaptation of medieval-era poetry became an occasion for street violence and muscle flexing. As the apex court noted: “If you go by this, 60 per cent of literature, even classical literature of India cannot be read.”