By M D Nalapat
In a country where FIRs rain down like confetti, none has been initiated against Karni Sena.
It
is difficult to understand why the Central Board of Film Censors
(CBFC)—itself out of place in a democracy—was presumed to be the
definitive authority about what celluloid offering would be permitted to
get screened in public, and which completed movie would be returned
unexhibited into the cans storing film reels. For, this is clearly not
the case. An organisation terming itself the “Karni Sena” has given
itself the responsibility of certifying whether a movie that none of its
members has seen should be shown within the country. They have also
grabbed for themselves the CBFC’s power to censor and edit the film, Padmavati.
There are several who sought to jail Subramanian Swamy for writing an
oped years ago that dropped out of view almost as soon as it was
published. These individuals seem, however, reluctant to go to the
police to complain about the threats made against the producer and
actors of Padmavati.
A public threat to cut off Deepika Padukone’s nose has been made by an
individual claiming to represent the Rajput community, but who seems to
instead be a disgrace to this or any segment of the country’s
population. Another “Karni Sainik”—who is clearly aeons distant from the
chivalry of the Rajput community—has offered a reward of Rs 5 crore to
any individual who would be barbaric enough to do grave harm to producer
Sanjay Leela Bhansali or actress Deepike Padukone. A munificent sum,
when murder “suparis” of
Rs 5 lakh are considered generous in Mumbai, given the city’s expanding
population of illegals. In a country where FIRs rain down like
confetti, none has been initiated against the members of the Karni Sena.
Rather than on television screens, the Karni Sainiks should volunteer
to go to Syria and Iraq to do battle against ISIS, judging by the
ferocity and the fighting spirit they exhibit in television studios
against a somewhat less formidable foe, Deepika Padukone.
Prisons in India are crowded by those who
have never had the privilege of a day in court or even been formally
charged. A young undertrial, who finds himself in jail for lack of money
(to ensure that the police work for the truth, rather than follow the
path designed to secure a bribe), may find himself moving past the
threshold of senior citizenship before finally managing to extricate
himself from a prison environment that destroys productive capacities
through conditions that are exceptionally harsh. As they were when our
country became free of colonial masters who regarded the people they
ruled as trash, and behaved to them accordingly. Across much of the
governance system, very little has changed in the laws and practices
since 15 August 1947. In particular, most of the effective control over
the administration is as firmly in the hands of the IAS, as it earlier
was under the ICS, the traditions of which the successor service has
followed with pride since 1947. As for the politicians who in theory run
the system, these are regularly sent off Yes-Minister-style on grand
tour after grand tour, moved from dazzling event after dizzying event,
the news headlines they get being in inverse proportion to their success
in imposing their preferences over those of the bureaucracy. Seeking to
wrest control from the bureaucracy is a battle almost all politicians
give up within weeks of assuming office.
An interesting result in a country that
was divided on the basis of the toxic Two-Nation theory is that during
some periods, those belonging to Community X get a much higher dose of
immunity from prosecution for offences than others, while in other
times, that benefit flows to Community Y. Depending, of course, on the
particular composition of vote relied upon by a ruling party to cross
the 35% threshold that almost always ensures victory in the Westminster
“first past the post” system so faithfully copied in India. Or in other
words, substantial power for a period of five years of huge financial
resources and vast powers. The impunity with which the “Karni Sena” has
been agitating against the release of a yet-to-be-screened film is
indicative of the gap between formal and effective power. Another
example is the way in which groups of unemployed youths stop vehicles
transporting bovines, and in some cases, murder those at the wheel.
These are of recent vintage, but those who trumpet that such conditions
represent a change from the past, are themselves oblivious to the
reality that similar takeovers of power have long been endemic in India.
How else could state-owned banks give so many loans to individuals who
clearly had not the faintest intention of repaying the same? How else
could resources such as spectrum or coal been allocated on the shadowy
preferences (expressed in yellow post-it stickers) of those devoid of
formal positions of power who left powerless those with impressive
formal titles?
After having stood by Victorian values
and codes in matters such as criminal defamation or consensual relations
between adults, the Supreme Court has fortunately defended freedom of
speech. Hopefully, the Government of India will gain courage from this
stance and put an end to the tandava
of those who seek to prevent any expression of opinion that does not
meet their standards or pander to their taste. A good place to start
would be to stop the Karni Sena from its numerous acts of intimidation
and worse. The UPA lost the confidence of the voter because of its
supine attitude to serial misuse of authority by government agencies.
The situation now is different, in that it is not government agencies
but non-state usurpers of their authority who are working hard to make
this country a global laughing stock. Refusal to take action against
them must not be an option for a Prime Minister as committed to the
imperatives of the 21st century as Narendra Modi.
No comments:
Post a Comment