The liberals in and outside the media are celebrating the Madras High
Court judgment in the case of Perumal Murugan who wrote a book
“Madhorubagan” — the book that had invited massive protests in Western
Tamil Nadu by the Kongu Vellalar community who felt hurt by its
contents. The High Court has written a long and profound prose on how
liberal the Indian Constitution is and the freedom it guarantees. The
Murugan case judgment calls for a comment in the backdrop of the
country’s political and constitutional ecosystem.
Madhorubagan case
First, the facts of the Murugan case. The judgment sets out the contents
of the book and the objections to it in paras 27 to 62, which are
important. Madhorubagan is the name of the Hindu temple deity
“Arthanareeswara” in Tiruchengode where from Murugan hails. The belief
is that on the Vaikasi Visakam day of the temple’s annual car festival,
childless couples who circumambulate the ‘Varadi Kal’ [a large boulder
on hilltop] would be blessed with a child, known as “Sami Kodutha
Pillai” [God Given Child]. Murugan’s book centres around a childless
couple, Kali and Ponna of the 1940s. Kali’s mother advises him to allow
his wife Ponna into the sexual orgy that takes place on the Vaikasi
Visakam day — so that she begets a child through the orgy. As Kali
refuses, Ponna’s brother tells him that the popular belief “Sami Kodutha
Pillai” is only child begotten by women by sex orgy with strangers
during Vaikasi Visakam. The imputation is also that most married Kongu
Vellalar womenfolk in Tiruchengode indulge in sexual orgies and the
childless among them get impregnated in the one night orgy. The festival
is a once a year opportunity for youths from “untouchable” community,
according to Murugan, to explore their libidos and orchestrate it on
Kongu Vellalar community women above 30 years. Murugan even wrote that
the youths would boast about how many women they had had sex with on
that one night. It does not need a seer to say that unless a community
is saintly, it must feel hurt by such writing, hurt to its religious
feelings apart.
Facts not denied
The judgment does not indicate that the facts
set out by the community are false. The only issue discussed is whether
the author had intended the book as fiction or as historical narrative.
Far from claiming it as fiction Murugan had said in his preface that he
had studied and documented the Tiruchengode orgies. But when, at the
peace meet called by government officials, community leaders asked for
the documents, he could show none.
Despite the author himself
asserting to the contrary [even though he withdrew his claim later], the
book has been accepted as fiction in the judgment. Constitutional
freedom of expression is not unlimited. Hurting facts maybe permitted.
But hurting fiction should not be easily allowed. The law is clear that
expressions should not offend decency or morality nor defame anyone or
incite violence. Can women of a community be trivialised as amoral like
Murugan has done to assert one’s constitutional right? Do such
undignified remarks about women, whose dignity is paramount in any
civilised society, promote freedom?
Self-exculpatory
The Court has castigated those who protested
against the book as “a section of people just seeking to put themselves
or their ancestors in the shoes of persons who are affected because of a
reference to a location and a folklore, which description of location
also stood withdrawn subsequently, since the author believed it was a
work of fiction and could have been based anywhere else”. What
impression the book intends and creates in the average reader is
critical, not what the author Murugan believes, particularly post facto.
Murugan’s retroactive belief is clearly self-exculpatory. He has
written not about an unspecific section of people, but particularly
about the women of the community he names. That community and the ritual
are connected geographically and could not relate to any other place or
any other community. He names and undermines the Kongu Vellalar
community women. Imagine the community in Murugan’s book is about a more
aggressive community or its ancestors. There would have been no peace
meeting as in Tiruchengode — but only massive violence. Threat of
violence, a worldly reality, has led to judicial silence, even
restraint, on free expression. The most famous case was on Salman
Rushdie’s book, “Satanic Verses”. Some 25 years back Islamic cleric
Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa to kill him for writing that book. The
man is under protection till today. Recall Kamal Haasan’s film
Vishwaroopam, three years back. The film cleared by Censor Board was
banned in Tamil Nadu on law and order grounds as the protesting Muslims
halted Chennai. The ban led to stopping its screenings in neighbouring
states, even in a few foreign countries.
Satanic Verses and Polyester Prince
Judicial declarations on
liberty and freedom hardly enthuse the people because of lack of
consistent and evenhanded approach to all cases. When the Supreme Court
denied the right to life and liberty in ADM Jabalpur case during
Emergency and post-Emergency pontificated on the right of Maneka Gandhi
to passport as part of the right to liberty, it was laughable. Salman
Rushdie claimed his “Satanic Verses” was just a fiction and apologised,
but no one took notice of it. India which, according to the Murugan case
judgment, has “one of the most modern and liberal Constitutions” was
the first country to ban Rushdie’s book! Liberals were afraid of
challenging the ban. Even if it were challenged no court would have
pontificated on the freedom of expression of Rushdie because had the
book not been banned there would have been riots all over. Likewise no
liberal challenged the ban on Vishwaroopam before courts like Murugan’s
admirers enterprisingly do now. The reason is obvious. In the face of
threat of violence, no one looks at freedom of expression. Liberals
vanish before violent mobs. Take another case, that of Dhirubhai Ambani.
This newspaper had carried on a relentless campaign in the 1980s to
expose the wrongdoings of Reliance. But the government of the day joined
hands with the wrongdoer and raided the paper, arrested the writer,
harassed the owners, and filed over 300 criminal cases against it to
protect Ambani. Later Hamish MacDonald, an Australian journalist, wrote a
book “Polyester Prince” which documented the work of this paper and
misdeeds of Ambani. “Polyester Prince” was barred in India. By who? By
the judiciary at the lower level! The liberals like those who are crying
for freedom of expression today did not take the case to the High Court
or Supreme Court. The reason is self-evident. It concerned a most
feared and richest Indian business group.
See the sort of books banned by governments
in India. The book “The Reminiscence Of The Nehru Age” by M O Mathai,
secretary to Pundit Nehru, which explosively described all important
personalities of Nehru era, was banned in 1978. Why? Because it offended
the powerful. Freedom of expression didn’t matter. “Understanding Islam
through Hadis” by Ram Swarup was banned in 1991. Why? Because it was
critical of political Islam. “The Moor’s Last Sigh” a fiction by Salman
Rushdie was banned in 1995. Why? It contained a character resembling
Balasaheb Thackeray, the powerful Shiv Sena boss, also had a dog named
Jawaharlal. The Supreme Court declared the ban unconstitutional in 1996.
Yet, the book sellers, fearing violence, refused to stock the book in
Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena forte. No liberal approached the Supreme
Court for contempt. More.
The “True Furqan”, written by two
Muslims Al Saffee and Al Mahdee, was banned for purportedly mocking
Islam. A Pune court ordered the copies of the book by Anand Yadav which
was derogatory to Tukaram and Dnyaneshwar to be destroyed in June 2014.
Clearly, there is no consistency in the executive or judicial approach
on objected books. The only guiding principle seems to be whether it
will lead to violence.
Constitutional hypocrisy
The Tiruchengode community who were
protesting against ‘Madhorubagan’ were ordinary people — dhoti-wearing
countrymen, not modern urbanites. Not like the wealthy Ambanis, who
could threaten the publisher to pulp the book or politically powerful
like those who could get books, like the ones on Pundit Nehru or Bal
Thackeray, banned. The Tiruchengode people conducted a peace talk
democratically where Perumal Murugan was invited to produce the evidence
he had claimed. There was no violence. No one abused or molested him
despite the issue being sensitive. Murugan apologised for his writing
because he could not adduce any evidence. Yet the peace meet is regarded
as kangaroo court, despite government officials initiating it. Many
disputes in India are settled by informal talks — be it panchayat or
community leaders’ intervention. The famous Manipal group dispute
lingering for decades in High Courts and Supreme Court was finally
solved by a spiritual leader — Veerendra Heggade. A sweeping
generalisation is likely to undermine a valuable, cost effective social
capital still functioning in many parts of India. The judiciary ought to
be empathetic and issue guidelines on how peace meetings or panchayat
should be held rather than ridiculing and trivialising them. In communal
riots or caste wars, even police invariably resorts to peace meetings
and solves issues. Are they too kangaroo courts? Despite Murugan’s
provocative writing against their women, the community gathered for the
peace meet, which was held without violence. They need to be patted. In
Rushdie and Vishwaroopam cases, the protesters succeeded in their aim by
unleashing violence. Were the Tiruchengode people wrong then in holding
peace meeting? The conclusion is self- evident: A helicopter view of
the cases on ban on books in most cases and selective assertion and
celebration of freedom in some other cases exposes political and
constitutional hypocrisy that goes on in the name of liberalism and
freedom of speech.
Evenhanded approach needed
A personal account: An educated lady
professional from Tiruchengode, who begot a child by undertaking the
Visakam ritual, asked me what those who had read Murugan’s book would
think of her and her child. I had no answer. Nor can the liberals who
celebrate Murugan’s book have any. Thousands of women in Tiruchengode
areas suffer this humiliation — silently. I understand their pain.
Lesson: A balanced and evenhanded constitutional approach to ban or
permit objectionable expression is needed.
By S. Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on economic and political affairs.
Email: guru@gurumurthy.net
Courtesy: The New Indian Express
No comments:
Post a Comment