Politics is a profession that proverbially demands thick skins of its practitioners. But in India, the fast track to a political career is via the development of a thin skin. If somebody is sufficiently creative in the art of taking offence, a successful political career is assured.
It seems most of India’s wannabe politicians scan the news in the hopes of finding something to raise a shindig. For example, Slumdog Millionaire attracted the attention of one Viswakarma, who believes the name is derogatory to slum dwellers. The MNS had demanded that the Third Battle of Panipat be expunged from the history books. The Ram Sena molests women in Mangalore, in the name of protecting India’s culture. A woman who has tattooed scriptures from the Koran Sharif is beaten up by other women in a swanky Mumbai mall.
Well, actually the MNS hasn’t yet made any references to the Third Battle of Panipat. But the other incidents have happened in the recent past. Each got more than its fair share of media attention for the “offended party” rather than resulting in mandatory psychiatric evaluations for them.
This is not a new trend. Indian artists, cricketers, writers, musicians have all given offence to somebody in the past few years. To mention instances at random, Husain has a multitude of cases filed against him for painting nude studies of Indian Goddesses; Ravi Shastri has a case filed against him for confessing to a love for steak; a popular song lip-synched by Madhuri Dixit was censored and bowdlerised because it mentioned cobblers and goldsmiths; Taslima’s lack of religious fervour has sparked agitations.
In each instance, the “offended party” betrayed an inability to deal with the realities of multi-cultural environments. And that is where the trouble lies. Instead of encouraging people to make choices, India’s socio-political structure actually offers incentives to find things to get offended about.
There is far too much scope in Indian law for developing a thin skin. Good old section 295A of the Indian Penal Code is the most popular weapon in the armoury of the offended. It states that it is a crime to “outrage — any class by insulting its religion or beliefs”.
That “class” is a killer-app because it is open to broad interpretation. The millionaires of India can file a petition on the basis that it is derogatory to equate them to “slumdogs”. Animal lovers could also get into the act and sue because the noble and faithful dog is being defamed. Good Hindus should surely file a suit against the Ram Sena for defiling the name of a king, reputed to be a staunch protector of women.
Laws like this sanctify intolerance. In any heterogeneous society, there will be enormous, visible differences in lifestyle and opinion. Citizen A and Citizen B will choose to dress differently, worship or refuse to worship different divinities, enjoy different diets, listen to different genres of music and watch different news-channels.
There are ways of expressing dissent without violence or litigation. Mohandas K Gandhi found creative ways to do that. On his death anniversary yesterday, several thousand people switched off their cellphones to show their disgust at Sunil Mittal, Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani’s enthusiastic endorsement of Narendra Modi. This will not really dent telecom service providers’ bottomlines anymore than Gandhiji’s refusal to pay salt tax drove the Empire into penury.
Multi-cultural societies are viable only when people respect each other’s choices. But the laws of our land are really much about maintaining the template of colonial rule circa 1861. That was just four years after the upheaval, which the drafters of those laws referred to as the “Sepoy Mutiny”. Oops, that should read the First War of Indian Independence.
