Obscene distinction

The three-member committee constituted by the Gujarat governor to investigate the row over the ‘obscene’ painting at Baroda’s MS University last year rightly recommends that the suspension of Shivaji Panikkar be revoked. The acting dean of the university’s prestigious Fine Arts Faculty was forced to step down when he defended his student Chandramohan Srilamantula against the attack mounted by a mob on the university premises. The committee also does well to advise that Chandramohan be taken back and judged for his work. The indictment of the university authorities for their dereliction of duty in the face of hooliganism was also long overdue. Yet the sense is unavoidable: the committee does not go far enough. It bases its conclusions and recommendations on the fact that Chandramohan’s painting was part of an internal examination. As a report in this paper has pointed out, committee members were of the view that the word ‘obscene’ could have been used had the works been part of a public display. This is a half-hearted defence of the freedom of expression.

It is true that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally subject to reasonable restrictions. Yet, even a cursory look at recent episodes when it has been sought to be curtailed in our country would illustrate how far the balance has tilted towards an unreasonably restrictive environment. The onus is always on the artist and writer to explain themselves while the agitators who are acting in the name of “the people” always roam free. First the attack is carried out, and then before the victim can react, cases are filed against the victim and rarely against the perpetrators. These cases — filed under some problematic sections of the penal code that were intended as safeguards against hate speech and are now mostly misused — drag on. The hounding of M.F. Husain is a perfect case in point.

This pattern repeats itself with the complicity of the state. Governments in India, particularly at the Centre, have repeatedly caved in before the mob. The faint-hearted hospitality that the UPA has offered to Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen is only the latest example. In such an environment, an eminent committee comprising two academics and an artist should have stood up for Chandramohan’s freedom to express himself in the public space — and not just within the university boundaries — without being threatened with violence.