Dr. John Mohan Razu, CTC, Mokokchung
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he documentary titled India’s Daughter by British filmmaker Leslee Udwin, depicts an interview with Mukesh Singh, one of the six men who brutally raped a 23-year-old woman on December 16, 2012. This documentary that graphically explains what went in his mind and the psychological frame while carrying out that act has kicked up huge storm in India. Some across the section went to the extent of demanding a ban. The BBC initially wanted to telecast the documentary on the 8th of March, 2015, but the broadcast of the documentary advanced a few days earlier, (March 4, 2015), Since it was advanced a few days earlier many young Indians had watched the documentary and the support for the documentary gradually grew and its popularity increased.A series of events happened since then. The Home Ministry served legal notice to the BBC. The notice said that BBC had violated the contract on various fronts. In addition, one of the Home Ministry officials said that “They (BBC) were supposed to take final approval from the Tihar jail authorities on the interview of the convicts but they did not do so, and according to the contract signed with the BBC, they were barred to use the documentary for commercial purpose, which they have violated too”. Earlier to this, Home Minister Rajnath Singh said “the government was “examining all aspects” related to the documentary and would take action, if required”. Before telecasting the film in Britain and in some other countries, the BBC assured the government that it would not be aired in India. But went ahead and showed the film and even uploaded on YouTube.
I & B Ministry has also sent directive to the Indian news channels not to telecast this documentary. Over and above, the film was not available even in YouTube channels with the message: “This content is not available on this country site due to a court order”. Even the parents of the rape victim wanted not to air the documentary. Since it was not applicable to BBC, it uploaded on YouTube which irritated the victim’s father who lamented that “I am surprised that BBC uploaded its documentary on YouTube in spite of the court’s restraining order. The BBC has hurt the pride of India. The act of BBC clearly shows that they don’t have fear of Indian law and our country”.
Women of all ages especially those who head women organizations, political parties and young working and college going youngsters showed their opposition to the blanket ban. For example, CPI-M politburo member and women right activist Brinda Karat said: “I have seen the documentary. It is powerful and moving. It does not sensationalize anything”. The All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) in its statement said: “It opposes the blanket ban on the documentary”. Activist “Kamala Bhasin said: “We are never for bans. That doesn’t help anything”. Writer Chetan Bhagat tweeted: “India’s Daughter is a must watch. Anyone who watches will understand devastation caused by regressive attitudes. Face it. Fix it”. Even the members of the film fraternity strongly reacted against the orders to restrain broadcast of the documentary, terming it a sign of “ostrich mentality”.
However, noted filmmaker Kunal Kohli she said that “It’s important to see the rapist hang rather than watch a documentary”. On the other, Hansal Mehta said “It was difficult for him to comprehend the government’s order and questioned why the government was restricting cinema from reflecting the truth of society”. On this issue both the houses were up on their heels questioning the government for having allowed the controversial documentary which featured one of the December 16 gang rape convicts. The Home Minister informed the parliament that the court order was obtained and also promising to investigate how permission was given to interview the rapist.
Many across the political spectrum strongly opposed to viewing of the documentary calling it as unacceptable. Even several women raised objections. For example, Delhi Commission for Women chairperson Barkha Singh said: “This defames the nation. How could they be given permission for interview”? The Home Minister Rajnath Singh responding about this in Rajsabha said: “In future, no one will be given permission to interviews rapists”. He added that “The documentary film was shown to jail authorities where it was noticed that the documentary film depicts the comments of the convict which are highly derogatory to dignity of women”. Certainly, the documentary India’s daughter by British film maker Leslee Udwin has kicked up a storm over one of the six members who raped the 23-year-old trainee physiotherapist on December 16, 2012 on board a moving bus in Delhi. BBC telecast “India’s Daughter” is now the top global trend on social networking site Twitter.
Acknowledging the veracity, gravity and intensity of Lesiee Udwin’s film India’s Daughter shot inside Tihar Jail, featuring conversations with Mukesh Singh and fellow convicts who raped and tortured a 23-year-old woman on a moving bus in Delhi in December 2012, has sparked all sorts of controversies as well as positive response from different segments across the spectrums. The sentences given to the convicts are yet to be implemented. The producer of the film seemed to have obtained the permission from the jail authorities and home ministry in 2013. She in her interview with a TV channel said that her objective was to tell the world about the anger of the Indian people and expose the mind of the rapist(s) who committed the heinous crime. Certainly her objective has been met wherein it irked anger and ferocity amongst majority. But the core objective was to expose the mind of the rapist (s) so that the viewers could go deep in the psychological dimensions and the mind-set of those who involve in rape.
Since the majority of people were triggered by rage and anger and this objective has been sidelined and never surfaced at all, except those who came in support of the documentary stating that it unpacked ambiguities and intricacies of the issue vis-à-vis rape. For many, emotions subdue reason and for some reason prevail over emotion. Major section of people belonging to diverse sectors vociferously and in unison expressed that the documentary made the rapists as heroes and in the process defamed women by lowering their dignity and self-esteem. Therefore, they strongly and in unison wanted the film to be banned and should in any circumstances be shown in India. Along with the concerned ministries they want the film to be banned from being screened internationally too.
But those in favor and of the opinion that the film should be screened say that the statement of Mukesh Singh, the bus driver who was one among the rapists on December 16, 2012, had blamed the victim that women ought not to be out on the streets after 9PM. Adding further Mukesh said Nibhaya shouldn’t have fought back, but should have allowed the rape after which she could have been dropped off the bus. Since the victim fought back, she was murdered. He also said that his death would actually lead to killing of the women after rape. He was categorical that the rape victims would automatically killed keeping in view of the legal procedures and considering the stringent laws of the land.
There are diverse opinions, views and perceptions emerging at different layers. The debate is not about the death penalty, but about the factors that propelled them to commit such heinous act. Those who saw and did not see the film are making such hue and cry and consequently have exposed their mindsets and double standards. Nonetheless, a substantial number of people who viewed the film India’s Daughter as a documentary for study and research argue against the ban. They made their point clear and loud. The message that the documentary conveys: 1) about the public rage against rape and atrocities against women; 2) graphically unfolds the deep-seated sub-conscious minds of these people who could go to any extent to unleash their brute power against the women to satiate their lust.
Many jumped into the bandwagon and passed all sorts of comments and statements. Most of them happened to have emotionally charged without applying reason. However, the ban on this film raises pertinent questions on our Republic. NDTV showed the title of the move in its channel for about one hour. A huge debate is going on. Protests in different quarters are organized against banning of the film in India. People want more debate on the film questioning the government that states the contents are objectionable. But others questions range: what are the contents objectionable in the documentary. There should be objective evaluation.
Are bans justified? Can a culture of bans work in India? These questions leads to an overarching question: Are we a republic of bans? In India bans are imposed on many things that trigger religio-cultural sentiments of people. In the name of “sensitive” to religion especially to the majority who subscribe to Hinduism, political parties in general and BJP in particular introduce bans such as India’s Daughter. In the name of culture and religion bans are imposed for different kinds of things. Simultaneously President Pranab Mukherjee a few days gave his assent o the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Bill, which hasd been pending for 20 years, extending a ban on the killing of cows, considered sacred by Hindus, to bulls and bullocks.
Violation of it will lead to five-years of jail for anyone found in possession of beef. The state government lead by BJP said it could take a week to implement the law. But the fringe elements such as VHP intend to move the court for prompt implementation of the ban. Abdeo the All-India Secretary of the VHP want the law to be implemented without any delay because thousands of cattle would have been slaughtered. Acting on the VHP’s appeal, Justice V.M. Kanade ordered the state to ensure that killing of bulls and bullocks is stopped.
Slaughter houses and meat centres across the state of Maharashtra, including Deonar, have stopped operating. Up to 95 per cent of the large-sized cattle slaughtered in Deonar were bulls or bullocks, with the rest being water buffaloes, whose killing is legal. This ban would cost many jobs and push up prices of buffalo meat. Deonar, located in the outskirts of Mumbai, is India’s largest abattoir. The beef trade is mainly controlled by minority Muslims, raising concern that the ban is driven by Modi loyalists pushing a Hindu agenda. The reasons that are given for the ban be it India’s Daughter or cow slaughter or whatever ought to be premised on sound reasons.
Everyone has the right to eat whatever is available: be it beef or meat or chicken or pork or others. Applying selective amnesia for beef slaughter and sale and giving absurd reasons reifying the ban with religious interpretation leads to aberration. This type of ban falls nothing short of deliberately targeting particularly Muslims, Christians, Dalits and the Tribals. Invoking Hindu cultural constructs supported by wrong religious tenets shows the deviant motifs of Hindutva brand of Hinduism. Culture especially for the fringe elements misrepresent as majoritarian meaning Hindu who characterize a particular religious (Hindu) ethos. They use cow as the civilizational icon. By elevating cow as “sacred” and “goddess” as against the humans falls short of human dignity and worth. This sort of interpretation helps the fringe elements and leading us to medieval and dark ages.
In democracy there should be debates. Every democracy needs debates and free and fair exchange of ideas. Democracy allows freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Democracy has the right to invoke and revoke but with debates that comprises of reason and logic. In the name of majority and brute strength bans cannot be imposed. This is why in democracy protests and demonstrations are allowed. So, bans would work better only when there are well-informed debates and discussions. There should be valid exercise of power and the power comes from the people. People are the means and the ends of democracy. It is the people who are at the center of democracy. Those who are elected as the peoples’ representatives have the right to express their views. In a democracy principles will have to be lifted and debated, not dogmas and doctrines.
The government should have dealt with substance and should not have asked other countries not to screen the film. India defamed by the government’s conduct. Interestingly our government is going all out pleading countries for international condemnation. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry (I&B) of BJP government is now turned into Ministry of Intolerance and Banning. It is an embarrassment in every level. There is no moral reason to ban the film. Court has restrained to telecast the documentary. By banning, the Government has made the Republic a laughing stock before the comity of nations. However, this documentary made us to get angry, put us to shame us and provoked us to make change. The entire world knows that Delhi is the rape capital of the world. The Government’s responsibility is not going after people who make derogatory remarks but to make Delhi safer for women.
Let us be reminded of emergency where freedom of expression and movements in all forms was clamped. Those 15 months were the period of dark ages and those who are now in the positions to legislate and enact laws were behind prison doors. There should be honest, rational and objective inquiry. In open society like India before every action especially when it comes to freedom of expression there should be debates and exchange of ideas and there is no compromise. Impositions of bans manifest the cowardliness and manipulations of those in power-centers. Many who are for banning the documentary have not seen the film. Freedom of expression is the basic constitutional right of all the Indians who belong to this Republic and it is non-negotiable. BJP or whoever cannot take these constitutional rights and obligations by force. Freedom of speech is the basic right which is like water for us. Without debates if ban is introduced on anything leads to protests and demonstrations. Our democracy is progressive, so let us not make our Republic regressive.
