Remember Sholay the quintessential Bollywood movie? In the film’s climax scene, one police officer stops Thakur from killing Gabbar with his feet. This was Thakur’s revenge as his hands were earlier chopped off by Gabbar. But at this point, the officer reminds Thakur that being an ex-policemen himself, he should know that one should not take the law into his own hands and allow due process. With Thakur’s sense restored, the movie ends with the police taking Gabbar into custody. Now the question remains as to why I’m telling you about a cult movie half a century later? Well, that’s because this particular ending was a product of the censor board and not what the director had intended.

This movie was due to be released during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency era and the officials argued that, Thakur taking his revenge by killing Gabbar was too violent. Even though the director pleaded with them to let Thakur have his way since the entire movie was about retribution, it did not make any difference. In the end, the Director had to follow the board’s orders. Like others before him had done.

Now this scenario is all too familiar to an artist. Or to any citizen that takes a contrarian stand. There are always two choices. Either toe the line or be relegated to obscurity. What if there is a middle ground between these two extremes? Only make enough changes to stay under the radar and still be able to keep your conscience intact. But then your work is nothing more than a hotchpotch of personal & majoritarian propaganda. Like what the director did. Is there any shame in doing so? No. Is this wrong? I don’t know. It’s upon the individual to decide. But I’ll tell you this. Being afraid doesn’t make one necessarily a coward. It sometimes buys time to prepare for the next confrontation.

This is highly variable depending upon the context. Both in bans and in resistance to them. Consider the recent case of the Jharkhand govt banning a book by Hansda Shekhar after it had been in publication for more than two years. The book, a collection of short stories on the lives of adivasis (tribals) of the state was critically acclaimed in literary circles. But it was still taken out of publication. This is surprising for two reasons. Firstly, the writer belonged to the community about which he wrote. The stories were an insider’s view of the lives of people cutoff from the mainstream consciousness. Thus, the argument of the government and certain adivasi groups that it was an incorrect portrayal of the community is untenable. Secondly when the book was initially published, there was no furore about its content from either the adivasis or the government. It is no wonder then that certain expressions are banned not because of their content but also about how the the content could be manipulated to gain a political advantage.

Forget about the actual content. Many a time when vested interests perceive or claim to perceive a threat to their ideological position in a piece of art, the train to ban-istan picks up speed. One must remember how Salman Rushdie was hounded out of the country because the Muslim fundamentalists’ thought that the book, Satanic Verses, was heretical. However, this is not exclusive to one religion either. In recent times, Hindutva groups rallied against the screening of the movie ‘Padmaavat’ as they believed it incorrectly portrayed a historical figure.

These were instances of one community expressing outrage over artists who belonged to the same community but challenged the conventional notions through their art. What happens when an artist takes a liberal approach in his depictions of a group different than his own. You get a M. F Husain. In February 2006, Husain was charged with “hurting sentiments of people” because of his nude portraits of Hindu gods and goddesses. After of hundreds of lawsuits and allegedly, death threats from the right-wing groups, emigrated to Qatar. Some question his secular beliefs. Why didn’t he paint Mohammad & other Islamic figures in the nude? Would he have suffered the same fate as the cartoonists at the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo? They were murdered by Muslim zealots when they published controversial Mohammed cartoons in 2015.

Even the supposedly tolerant and secular West has had instances of religious extremism. For example, in October 22, 1988, an integrist Catholic group set fire to a theater in Paris while it was showed the controversial film, The Last Temptation of Christ. However in recent times, such instances are nearly non-existent. Perhaps there is a correlation between better access to education, higher income levels and increased tolerance. Adjusted for levels of development, there is no qualitative difference between the West of the past and India of the present in using blasphemy laws to suppress freedom of expression.

In India, written works are banned not only for religious considerations but also to protect personal reputations of those with power and for commercial considerations. In May 2018, the Delhi High Court reinstated a ban on the publication of a book titled ‘Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev.’ Ramdev had alleged that the book, was “extremely defamatory”, and “infringed his right to privacy”.

Censorship exists in independent India because of two reasons: Firstly, the design of Indian legal system is such that, it is easy and cheap for censorship to thrive. And like in the above mentioned case of Baba Ramdev’ biography, the judicial commitment to free speech is at best, questionable. The perfect blend of these two elements ensure that, writers, publishers and artists are constantly engaged in defending themselves from threats of censorship instead of pursuing their interests.

One thing is clear. Censorship in India is non-partisan. While Congress has been criticized for using it for minority appeasement, the BJP, while in power, does it to promote majoritarian values. Even regional parties are prone to misusing these powers.

But how does the government/judiciary derive powers to curtail freedom? From four sections distributed over three different pieces of legislation.

The Constitution itself: Though the Article 19 of the Constitution provides for a fundamental right of expression that’s guaranteed by the Supreme Court, it is still restricted in favour of public order, decency or morality, defamation or incitement to an offence etc. The section 95 of Code of Criminal Procedure (1973): It allows the Indian govt. to ban publications without having to prove it in a court of law. According to this section, if a piece of work ‘appears’ to the govt to have violated any law, it can be banned. The section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (1860): A colonial creation, it was enacted to prevent hate speech that insults or attempts to even insult the religious beliefs of any class of citizen with deliberate and malicious intention to outrage their religious feelings. But the main stated purpose of this law has been to maintain “public order in a multi-religious and religiously sensitive society.” Sections 124A of the Indian Penal Code (1860): Popularly known as the sedition clause, it allows the government to imprison anyone who ‘excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India.’ The imprisonment can extend from three years to life.

One common thread among all the above instruments is that, they are all vague. Vagueness is the handmaid of tyranny. When clear-cut definitions aren’t provided, wildly contradictory interpretations can be made. Anything can be construed to be a threat to public order. This gives wide latitude for those in power to stifle dissent and suppress criticism. Thus, any expression can be construed as acceptable or profane everyday depending on the party or leaders in power.