Censorship Reflects a Society’s Lack of Confidence in Itself.
Indian history is replete with instances and events where people have not been afraid to think differently. A tremendous sources of India soft power is the fact that Indian culture and civilisation has embraced PLURALISM and DIVERSITY as a part of its DNA.
Source of the greatest icons of national life were champions of civil liberties. Tilak, Bhagat Singh, Nehru and Gandhi were torchbearers of the right to question, think and critically analyse the prevailing British propaganda fed to the Indian people.
In the ancient age, we have the example of Buddha who debunked vedic supremacy and challenged the Charvaka status quo. The great universities of Nalanda and Takshashila were renowned all over the world for the logical debates, argumentative reasoning.
In the age of Akbar, Ibadat Khana was a place where scholars would congregate and search for the meaning of truth and existence of God. Akbar invited heterodox thinkers and atheists to put forward their point of view.
Liberty of though, freedom of speech and expression, diversity of opinion is the SOUL OF DEMOCRACTIC ORDER. The essence of a confident society and a strong citizenry is embracing pluralism of paradigm. This furthers collective good and evolution of Knowledge.
WHAT IS CENCORSHIP?
Censorship is the suppression of the other’s right to speak or the right to know. It is enforced conformity and imposed homogenisation. Censorship usually takes the form of banning artistic and literary works, editing films, preventing the publication of constraints or proactive articles or essays.
Censorship is of two kinds state and societal. State censorship is where the state believes that in the interest of public order and morality, information must be controlled. Societal censorship doesn’t have legal or juridical backing but is more invisible, subtle. It is when society punishes and disciplines society members, to fall in love with prevailing norms and values. Due to fear of backlash, the individual is this censored by the larger community.
Government censorship has the might of the state backing it.
Censorship has the effect of chilling free speech and creative license of an individual to express his or her personality. It is symptomatic of a panic stricken and anxious society.
EXAMPLES OF CENSORSHIP:
India entered the global headlines for pulping the book of renowned academic scholar, Wendy Donginers, on Hindus and Hinduism. Her book challenge long-held belief in light of new research and evidence. Similar step has been taken years back when Salman Rushdie’s book “The Satanic Verses” was banned for fear of inflaming religious sentiments.
Recently, a documentary on Amartya Sen was asked to sensor the words COW and HINDUTVA. The wiser elements of civil society have been shocked by this bizarre attempt to curtail facts and information.
A similar event took place with the film UDTA PUBJAB that highlighted the drug nexus between the dealers, police and politicians in the state of Punjab. The film brought attention to the increased incidence of drug users in the border state. The film came under heavy fire by the censorship authorities when they asked the director to delete the word “PUNJAB” from the film’s title.
ISSUES CONCERNING CENSORSHIP:
Is the government justified in restricting an individual’s freedom to create knowledge or consume information? This question is at the heart of the debate on the relationship between the state and individual.
Liberty of thought and expression is enshrined in the PREAMBLE of the constitution. The fundamental right to freedom is part of the constitutional morality that holds our great nations together. Thus, the law of the land and the only holy book of the country.
THE CONSTITUTION mandates that bizarre and arbitrary censorship is an egregious violation of an individualistic right.
Additionally, each individual has an equal moral worth. Thus, he or she must be able to express his/her personality to the best. There is a moral value in opposing censorship.
From a utilitarian perspective, the act of censorship is regressive as it prevents society from reaching a positive equilibrium diversity is a straight that aids society in moving forward, having a critical lens and pursuing excellence.
A society that censors is an insecure society. It also disrespects other individuals by treating them as little children who need to be told what to think. A censored society is one that cannot flourish as there is a trust deficit between the individuals where people are suspicious of different viewpoints.
COMPARISION OF CHINA AND INDIA
The beauty and strength of Indian democracy is in its inclusivity and accommodation of all viewpoints. In the wake of Burhan Wani encounter in Kashmir, scholars and journalists wrote about the circumstances of the killing of the militant. There were all strands of viewpoints expressed in India media and newspapers. Similarly, there is vociferous debate on the violence in Kashmir and the steps to be taken to resolve the issue. Routinely there are scholars who speak of AZADI and others who speak of more integration with Indian union by removing article 370.
On the contrary is the case of china where Prof. Lu Xiabo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, died in state custody. He was sentences to 11 years of rigorous imprisonment for publishing CHAPTER-08 a call for democratic reforms in China.
India’s strength lies in the beauty of DELIBERATE DEMOCRACY. It is the mask of a confident society that trusts its active and informed citizenry. The case of China is an unconfident society living in the fear of unravelling.
In conclusion, the only scenario where censorship is permissible is when there is hard evidence of inflammation of violence and people live could be in danger. In such a situation, censorship can be a means to an end, that is, save lives. However, in any mature and advanced democracy, the fundamental freedom of thinking knowing and questioning must be accorded to its citizens.
Any censorship must not be politicized but be done moderately by an independent system of experts for the public interest. An over-censored society is not in the public interest.
A society that values diverse strands of thought is one that traverses the path of TRUE SWARAJ, the Gandhian ideal of the sovereignty of the individual.
(1019 words)
