India's Daughter: You fools, why ban?

Ban, ban, ban, ban, ban! Good grief why? Would the spirit of Nirbhaya, whose memory depicts her as without fear have asked for this ban. Her parents are not for the ban, but would not oppose a government ban if imposed.

Film intellectuals like Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar and Kabir Bedi are for airing the film, if only to expose the perversity of the rapists; and I would add their self-seeking lawyers. Shobhaa De says it should be compulsory viewing, while Sagarika Ghose says that it is Nirbhaya and not Mukesh who dominates the film.

Government view

On the government’s side home minister Rajnath Singh says he was stunned and deeply hurt. Was this a justification for the ban? How fickle. Delhi Police commissioner, BS Bassi was all set to file an FIR. The Opposition was sidetracked into asking who permitted the film (Rajiv Shankar) and the relief to be given to the victim’s family (Jaya Bachchan). Recall Haryana’s chief minister recently saying earlier that “if women want freedom... They can just roam around naked”. Mulayam Singh had exonerated the rapist boys who, alas, “make these mistakes”. Nishtha Gautam presents the film’s "totemism" and "sensationalism" while many newspaper editorials rightly do not find banning a solution.

Do we want to know more about the biggest social disease? Or simply brush all these issues under the carpet because we claim to be inheritors of a "pure" civilisation. The Modi government’s ban is as silly as it comes. India has no jurisdiction over BBC 4 which has already aired the documentary. Equally pointless, the Delhi High Court, is ordering its ban on the film to continue. Tihar Jail, which permitted filming, sends notices to BBC and Leslee Udwin for breach of conditions.

The reality is that the film is in the public domain. It reached many websites. YouTube proliferated the film. The BBC screamed violation of copyright. Some proliferators withdrew the film, but the proliferation continued.

Streisand effect

Ban followed by proliferation is called the "Streisand" effect named after the actress who attempted to ban illicit material on her. The more she complained, the more people wanted to see the objectionable material. The Spycatcher absurdity when England’s House of Lords banned a book. In a banner headline, a newspaper called the judges: “You Fools”. And, fools they were, denying people a book that was globally available.

Is there a freedom of speech to interview willing under-trial convicts? In 1982, the Supreme Court recognised journalist Prabha Dutt’s right to interview death sentence convicts according to the jail manual. In 1987, Sheela Barse’s right to interview prisoners was accepted by the Supreme Court. In 1999, the SC permitted India Today reporter Charu Joshi to interview death penalty accused. In 1980, justice Krishna Iyer declared that jail does not mean a prisoner or convict loses his basic rights, including free speech. In 1966, the apex court ordered the publication of a book by a prisoner on atomic sciences. Auto Shankar was convicted to death for six murders but allowed to publish his biography without censorship by police officers whom it exposed.

The law is clear. Prisoners have the right to express themselves. Journalists have the right to talk to prisoners. Jail manuals are to be reasonably interpreted. The BBC film had all the permissions from the ministry of home affairs.

Does the sub judice rule prohibit films and journalism on an on-going case. The Supreme Court allowed Zee to broadcast on an ongoing case. Tragically Black Friday, a brilliant film was kept under wraps by the Bombay High Court. The rule does not gag the media. The formula “file-a-case-and-gag-the-media” is unacceptable.

UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon found the content of what the rapists said objectionable. What if the film portrays how rapists think? When will India accept that it has an increasing rape culture which has gone viral? It is in March 2015 that there has been some news that should make us cringe. A 17-year-old gangraped girl committed suicide. On the same day, a Dalit was tonsured and paraded in his village because he lit a Holika fire. We do not restrain Sadhvi Balika who exhorted beating those who praised Pakistan. What do you say to a mob lynching a Nagaland rapist?

Remorseless

We have become cruel and uncivilised people devoid of remorse. Don’t blame Leslee Udwin for what we have become. We have pushed her to a point that she remonstrated that she, too, has been a rape victim. No banning will wipe out what have become.

A few decades ago, the Supreme Court lifted censorship on Tamas, Ore Ore Gramathille, Bandit Queen among others. This is a good message to our society whose demands for a ban degenerates into a shouting match as a reflex response. Today, mob demands of social censorship have become virulent. It is not just the state, but the society which has become intolerant. We should remember that free speech is a learning process and censorship and bans have little place in a democratic country, still less when it exposes rape as a social evil. But rather than face who we are, we resort to a ban. It’s the easiest option.