Government Of The Bans, For The Bans, And By The Bans

Last year, the Delhi High court in December put a ban on sales of Xiomi, a Chinese electronics company which is the third largest smart phones distributor is the world. The reason behind the ban was a patent infringement complaint by the Swedish telecom giant, Ericsson. This particular ban calls for a reference here because it was ordered pertaining to entirely commercial reasons. Which is rare in India.

Less like a governing body and more like a moral guardian, the Indian government has imposed several bans that have drawn the public ire over a period of time. Be it art, entertainment, books or food habits, bans have been all over the place. Among the most recent is the Maharashtra government ban on the consumption of Beef; the ban on the BBC documentary "India's daughter"; the list of cuss words issued by the censor board that should be banned in films, Hollywood Adult film 'Fifty shades of Grey' which was banned from releasing in India; and Tamil writer Perumal Murugan's novel 'Modhorubagan'(One part Woman). Other bans that have been controversial include the demand to ban porn in India, and the ban on the Wendy Doniger's book ' The Hindus: an alternative history'.

Banning books or movies or any other work of art that is found degrading to 'Indian Culture', has emerged to be the latest form of Indian Culture. Ramachandra Guha explains this culture of bans in his article 'Ban the Ban', " As these cases illustrate, the Republic of India bans books with a depressing frequency. Three factors promote this culture of banning. First, the descendants or devotees of biographical subjects are often too nervous or insecure to have them discussed with objectivity and rigor. Second, these fanatical or insecure followers have found an ally in the courts. Although the Supreme Court has tended to act on the side of the freedom of expression, lower courts have been less wise. The third and most significant reason for the proliferation of bans is the pusillanimity of our political class." He further criticizes the undemocratic divisive approach of our politicians. Be it the ban on Salman Rushdie's The Satanic verses by Rajiv Gandhi government, the ban on the works of Tasleema Nasreen by Left front in Bengal, Narendra Modi's ban on the book about Jinnah or the Hindutvawadis who destroyed paintings by M.F.Hussain and forced him into exile.

As the historian Dharma Kumar wrote, "the ban was a sign of the Government’s weakness. In a secular state blasphemy should not in itself be a cognizable offence; the President of India is not the defender of any nor of all faiths."

Defending her scholarly work, Doniger reflected that, " The Hindutvavadis do not merely want to speak, to be heard: they want to silence other people who are saying what they do not want to hear about Hinduism......There is irony in the realization that, through a kind of double-back pizza effect, India is the source of much of the Western misappropriation of India. Hindutvavadis adhere to a de-eroticized line of Hinduism that can be traced back in history to the Sannyasa Upanishads, to Abhinava Gupta's eleventh-century interpretation of Tantrism, and then, eventually, to the British Victorian imprint upon nineteenth-century Hinduism. Hindutvavadis object to sex, to Freud (whom they mistake for sex), to the erotic aspects of their own tradition (such as the Kamasutra), and to scholars (like myself) who have written — not only, I hasten to say, but also — about the erotic, sensual aspect of Hinduism. Complex psychological and historical factors have bred in certain contemporary Hindu men and women a sense of shame for the eroticism of their own religion. It has also robbed them of their sense of humour: scholars who celebrate the humor and satire in many Sanskrit texts are sometimes criticized as laughing at, rather than with, Hinduism. But part of the greatness of Hinduism is its ability to laugh at its own gods, and it would be a shame to lose that."

By imposing a ban, government conveniently fuels the curiosity of the public. Even if they ban documentaries, movies or porn for that matter, the tech-savvy generation will find its way around. Such bans do not sanction the kind of 'morals', 'culture', 'ethics' that our politicians would like us to believe. Protests against the celebration of Valentine's day or the 'Kiss of Love' campaign in the name of protecting 'Indian Culture' by the right wing activists is illogical and misplaced. Renowned arts editor and cultural critic Sadanand Menon said, “Go to any Vaishnavite temple in India, and you will find the 12th century poet Jayadev’s work Gita Govind being recited during morning prayers. The Sanskrit verse has several lines in which Radha urges Lord Krishna to make love to her ... While religious minded men and women seem to have no problem chanting these lines, they seem to get offended when a couple kiss in a park.” In the name of preserving the Indian brand of morality, as an instance of Victorian morality at work, he noted that several aspects of cultural expression in India, including dance forms like Bharatnatyam, celebrated free expressions of love and sexuality and this was not considered taboo.

Another ban controversy on consumption of beef has an absolute different seeping of 'indian Culture' into our food habits. Right after Maharashtra, the state of Haryana too followed pursuit and banned beef. Both the states are ruled by Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and BJP is volunteered by Rashtriya Swansevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing association. BJP denies any political motive behind the ban and claims that the ban is enforced for agricultural benefits. But slaughtering the cows was already banned in both the states, now the new law bans slaughter of bullocks, which had earlier already been deemed unfit for agricultural use. The ban has affected the eateries in Bombay, the butchers' community and the leather traders adversely resulting into losses that amounts in crores.

Opposing the beef ban in Maharshtra, two mumbaikars namely Vishal Seth, an advocate and Shaina Sen, a student challenged the ban in Bombay High Court and sought protection of their right to quality of life ingrained in their choice of source of nutrition and as a "cultural minority" among Hindus who have beef.

"We are Hindus who are consumers of beef, which is one of the nutrition sources and part of our diet...Hindu consumers of beef constitute a cultural minority and are entitled to preserve their dietary and cultural identity" they said. The Hindu duo's PIL said the ban on beef and criminalizing its sale and possession violated fundamental rights — the right to quality of life under Article 21 and Article 29 that bars discrimination against minorities by race, language, religion or culture.

"Beef in India is by far the cheapest of all meats sold and the cheapest source of protein for people who get their nutrition from animal protein source," Seth and Sen said. Beef was their nutrition source of choice and the ban would affect their quality of life, they added. Another PIL filed by a Jogeshwari resident in Mumbai pointed out that while possession of Bovine hide is not criminal, the possession of its flesh has been criminalized.

India ranks 136th in the world on the Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders. No wonder our mind-forged mannacles are pulling us down. But in the list of bans, the new arrival is the 17th March'15 issued letter by the Delhi University Student's Union(DUSU) to the dramatics society "Ankur's theatre", of Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Khalsa College. The letter addressed to the principal of Khalsa college by the DUSU joint secretary Ashutosh Mathur, wants the college to ban Ankur's Theatre for showing "inhumanity by presenting a fake drama on Hindus and Hinduism". Accusing their play being "anti-Hindu" DUSU wants the college to "take strong actions and ban the society with immediate effect", else threatening a "high level protest against the society". The president and the director of the play as reported by scoopwhoop.com said that, "Hindutva forces assert their domination, culturally, politically and in education. We have named political leaders, institutions in our play. They have a problem with that." Guneet is a political science student an wanted to focus on the political climate of India post 2014 elections in his play, that lead to the controversy.

A student's Union getting involved in right-wing activities is surprising, given that the youths of India are constantly taking over a revolutionary approach. If the nukkad-nataks too are to be censored then it is threatening to realize, where exactly are we heading as the young an the largest democracy of the world.