Chennai

What is common between Maqbool Fida Hussain and Perumal Murugan?  The answer may be that both are creative artistes. Beyond that, both left their native abodes and declared they are dead. MF Hussain, the world renowned painter renounced Indian citizenship and voluntarily became a citizen of Qatar.  The reason?  He was hounded by the fundamentalists for his paintings of Indian goddesses.  

Case after case was filed against him under section 153-A of the Indian Penal Code.  In Perumal Murugan’s case, he was forced to leave his home town (Namakkal). Struck by the communal frenzy he declared: “The writer is dead. He is not God, so he is not going to resurrect. He does not believe in reincarnation either.” The creative writer in him stopped functioning for the last two years. In both cases, it was judiciary which came to the rescue.  

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul as a Judge of the Delhi High Court quashed the proceedings against MF Hussain and while welcoming said: “A painter at 90 deserves to be in his home – painting his canvass” (2008). He also ruled: “Art, to every artist, is a vehicle for personal expression. An aesthetic work of art has the vigour to connect to an individual sensory, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. With a 5,000-year-old culture, Indian Art has been rich in its tapestry of ancient heritage right from the medieval times to the contemporary art adorned today with each painting having a story to narrate.” 

“A liberal tolerance of a different point of view causes no damage. It means only a greater self-restraint. Diversity in expression of views whether in writings, paintings or visual media encourages debate. A debate should never be shut out. ‘I am right’ does not necessarily imply ‘You are wrong’. Our culture breeds tolerance – both in thought and in actions. I have penned down this judgment with this fervent hope that it is a prologue to a broader thinking and greater tolerance for the creative field.” 

A historic coincidence then that Justice Kaul subsequently became the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court and had to perform the magic of resurrection by declaring in the Perumal Murugan Case, “Let the author be resurrected to what he is best at.” His sagely advice to Perumal Murugan and the likes was thus: “The author Prof Perumal Murugan should not be under fear. He should be able to write and advance the canvass of his writings. His writings would be a literary contribution, even if there were others who may differ with the material and style of his expression. 

The answer cannot be that it was his own decision to call himself dead as a writer. It was not a free decision, but a result of a situation which was created.  Time is a great healer and we are sure, that would hold true for Perumal Murugan as well as his opponents; both would have learnt to get along with their lives, we hope by now, in their own fields, and bury this issue in the hatchet as citizens of an advancing and vibrant democracy. 

We hope our judgment gives a quietus to the issue with introspection on all sides.  Time also teaches us to forget and forgive and see beyond the damage. If we give time its space to work itself out, it would take us to beautiful avenues. 

“We may be fortunate to have Justice Kaul striking out the actions of the intolerant state and the self-appointed vigilante groups in curtailing freedom of expression in one form or the other.  In the case of persons who objected to the book Mathorubagan (One Part Woman) on the grounds that it badly represents a particular community that was offended by the publication, Justice Kaul gave a saner advice that if you don’t like a book “throw it away.”   When India adopted a new constitution, it guaranteed the freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. 

It was subject to certain reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2). However, section 153-A of the IPC (a law made in 1860 before the Constitution came into being) punishes persons who “promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.”  

The Supreme Court had also ruled that the Courts will have to zealously watch the restrictions. In other words, as to what is reasonable, is a matter which will solely rest on the courts to decide. (1988 - Odyssey Communications). Shockingly, last year the Tamil Nadu government through a gazette notification banned two books – Venthar Ku lathin Iruppidam Ethu? (What Is the Place of the Kings?) by Senthil Mallar and Madurai Veeran Unmai Varalaaru (The Real History of Madurai Veeran) by Kuzhanthai Royappan – on the premise the books “contain false, objectionable and distorted facts criticising all communities.” 

The authors of those two books were hounded and slapped with sedition charges. A street singer named Kovan was arrested for singing publicly for the closure of Tasmac shops, curiously under sedition charges. Unfortunately, apart from the state-imposed restrictions, which in any way can be judicially reviewed, a new phenomenon has now cropped up.  

A few self-appointed persons attempt to muzzle the media and creative writers in the name of launching criminal prosecutions under Section 153-A of IPC.  In the case of the book by Wendy Doniger, the publisher withdrew her titles from shops by having a private deal with the adversaries. 

The real and persistent danger is the new trend that has set in, a group of self-appointed agents who dictates as to what should be published and what should be recalled from the shelves of bookshops. For them, it’s a no holds barred fight.  It could be anything based on caste, community, religion, nationalism or race or combination of these issues. 

The dilemma today is how to protect the right to freedom of expression from the self-appointed Nazis who are allowed to have a free run without any impunity. In the recent pronouncement of the Madras High Court, heavy reliance was placed upon the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in S Rangarajan’s case (1989) wherein the Supreme Court held: “Our remarkable faith in the freedom of speech and expression could be seen even from decisions earlier to our constitution. The problem of defining the area of freedom of expression when it appears to conflict with the various social interests enumerated under Article 19 (2) may briefly be touched upon here. There does indeed have to be a compromise between the interest of freedom of expression and special interests. But we cannot simply balance the two interests as if they are of equal weight. 

Our commitment of freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. “Even after such clear pronouncements by the highest court matters keep on knocking on the doors of various courts.  Only thing is even to restate the law, we need more justices like Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

The writer is a retired Judge, Chennai High Court

Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

Click here for iOS

Click here for Android