With the backdrop of the massive anti Padmavati protests,  wrote this for the ABP, two weeks ago

 

Even if you tried to avoid the pre-publicity surrounding the release of the Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Viacom 18 film, Padmavati, starring Deepika Padukone, Ranvir Singh, and Shahid Kapoor, you would have been unsuccessful. It is like the combined eco system of a silent Central Government, a complicit State Government, publicity hungry film makers, random groups trying to make a name, and an audience starved media (both main stream and social media) are conspiring to ensure that the fracas over Padmavati, is wiping out all other news from the radar.  And, rightly so, when senior members of the ruling party call for the beheading of actors and directors, you wonder if you have walked through a door into a parallel universe where a Hindu Isis exists.

Since the establishment of the Republic of India, in 1950, there has always been a tussle between local pride and identity, with national identity. Be it protest – often violent – for the formation of linguistic states; or the opposition to Hindi that ran parallel to the ascendency of the Dravidian movements in Tamil Nadu; be It Bal Thackeray’s agitation against outsiders, or protests in Assam against outsiders., this battle was continuous.  These led to local parties coming to the forefront, promising to take care of the interests of locals. In these battles, religious identity did not matter as much as ethnic or linguistic identity.

The local pride movements subsided in the 1980’s – it wasn’t completely erased out – and was replaced by events that consolidated vote relies on religious and caste basis. There were 4 major events –the first was Khalistan movement, and the schism between Hindus and Sikhs in Punjab, which saw in its wake the storming of the Golden Temple, the assassination of Indira Gandhi, and the 1984 riots; the second was the violent protests that followed the implementation of Mandal; the third was rise of the Islmaist identity in Kashmir, and the Kashmiri Pandit exodus;   and the forth was the lead up to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Hindu Muslim riots that followed in the aftermath, and the Bombay Blasts.  This was a different set of political players, who came to prominence in the wake of these events.

In the last decade, we have seen a different sort of identity politics being played out. The rise of the community based cultural groups, who hark back to a fuzzy history to claim ownership, and the sole right to portray the events regarding their community.  With education, and upward mobility, communities, rightly or wrongly, believe the pride of their people is derived from their ‘glorious’ historical past, rather than a glorious economic future. These groups are different from the groups in the post Independence era, in one vital way. Those in 1950’s, be it the DMK, or the Shiv Sena,  looked at the economic progress of the people in their chosen area. You may disagree with their methods or intentions, but their economic focus was very clear. The groups that have come to the fore in the last decade or so, are religious/social/cultural fundamentalists, who believe they, and only they, have the right to represent ‘their’ history. And, their target is writers, academics, film makers, even ordinary citizens.  Be it the violent protests Salman Rushdies Satanic Verses, or against James Laines book on Shivaji, be it fear of violent protests against a movie on Indira Gandhi’s assassination, or indeed the violent protests against Mathorubhagan – the attempt of groups to stifle diversity of thought has been mostly successful. So much so, this author can fill an entire column of 800 odd words just listing all the attempts to block diversity of thought.

We can sit here and till kingdom come, indulge in whataboutery, what about Charlie Hebdo, what about jailed cartoonists, what about drawing the Prophet Mohammed, what about something else that bothers you – all of these are valid. And, they are valid because in each of these cases those who wanted to restrict free speech and diversity have succeeded. Groups have the right to protest against things that offend them. One is not questioning that right. One is questioning the right of groups to call for, or indulge, in violence, while the state looks helplessly on.

One major player in all this chaos is the media – that enables the mainstreaming of every person, every group, calling for violence. Nobodies become the spokespeople of ‘their’ communities. But, while the media assists these groups in becoming important, the real culprit is the State that is silent. In all this, we have to ask,  what should be the role of the State? Does the State look at violent protests and calls for beheading as ‘freedom of expression’ or does it see it as a threat to civil rights and liberties of the majority, and crack down on violent talk and action? In following a policy of ‘maun vrat’ (vow of silence) on anything that is contentious, the Government is abdicating its duty (Rajya Dharma) to the citizens of India. We have the right to thought, speech, and action – and the role of the State is to protect those. This entire argument that ‘hurt sentiments’ has to be pandered to, is irrational. Because hurt sentiments will not cease to be hurt, they will find new things to be hurt by. The current Government’s behaviour to agitating groups is akin to a parent unable to manage a child throwing a tantrum in the middle of the mall, and who gives in. The next time the child will throw a bigger tantrum, as the groups are.