Of pornography, sedition & blasphemy

Does a nude painting of a sensuous, curvaceous woman depicting a Hindu goddess have anything at all in common with a pamphlet posted on Facebook calling the people of Kashmir to launch an armed assault on Jammu or a movie by a self-proclaimed saint prancing around like a rock star? They are all works of art, free expression of imagination or thought on paper or cyberspace or film, no matter how obscene, vulgar, dangerous, distasteful or irreligious they may be. But they could well border on pornography, sedition or blasphemy, respectively, depending upon who the viewer is. And may even be prosecutable offences as criminal libels.
An illiterate, rustic villager may not appreciate the artistic value of the work in the same way as a person with university education. Here again it depends upon the type of education  the viewer has received. In our country well-read persons with a strong liberal arts foundation, capable  of forming a reasonable opinion on the worth of a work of art or a piece of literature, are a small minority. Who is to decide whether people should see the nude or read the pamphlet or laugh at the saint?
Politicians will think politically, and why should they not? They have an election coming up. They must consider the impact of art on their constituency and can't be seen losing an election for the sake of artistic or literary expression. Government officials go to the other extreme. They just block the material from public viewing. So no one can really see it and form an opinion about its worth. This is the totalitarian way. TV anchors help raise the noise level but not the debate level. So a lot of inane discussion takes place on TV without anyone having even seen the work. They discuss freedom of expression with gusto but cannot explain to the viewers what they find objectionable in the work. What is it that makes it pornographic, seditious or blasphemous?
We in the 21st century have been supposedly enlightened with modern education. Or are we still  in the dark ages emerging from ‘pathshalas’ and ‘madarsas’? What is pornographic depends upon each one’s mental and  cultural make-up but why do we overlook Kamasutra and Khajurao, components of our heritage which we are all so proud of?  And why should it be seditious if a group of people assert the right to self-determination? It is a free world where you may shout from the rooftop that the State is discriminating against you and you want a separate country. Nations don't break up so easily because self-determination is very difficult to achieve. Call to arms, if raised, is answered with a call to arms by the State.
Someone must decide on the suitability of the work of art for public viewing after balancing the private right of  freedom of artistic expression and public morals, national security or religious freedom. A provision does exist (S. 96 CrPC) which gives a remedy to the aggrieved artist, author or movie-maker to approach the High Court. A Bench of judges would then see the offending work and decide whether it should be forfeited and withdrawn from public domain or not. Why do we permit these sensitive issues to be thrashed out in the streets or on TV channels or in the dark corridors of the Secretariat, where decisions are taken without anyone seeing the work or hearing the painter, author or movie-maker?
Our system works in a funny roundabout way.

Advertisement