Hindu Sensibilities In Azadi Ka Amrit Kaal

 After centuries of foreign onslaught and occupation, Hindus are feeling liberated and heard — like their voices matter.

When Savarkar spoke of a supra-caste Hindu unity materialising through the biggest Hindu reformation ever — Hindutva — he was, perhaps, referring to the present day.

However, there is still trouble brewing within Hindu society.

Either in their haste to criticise the Modi government or to satiate their justifiable anger, some Hindus are now demanding that the Indian state clamp down on content ‘offensive’ to Hindu sensibilities.

The contours of this proposed ban have not been laid down, but it obviously won't stop at movies. Articles, books, art, songs, documentaries — you name it and it’ll be sucked in.

Put simply, this will lay the ground for overarching state interference.

Here's a closer look:

Who defines offence? Let’s assume the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC, or the censor board) were to consider banning movies offensive to Hindus. Who determines what really is 'offensive' content?

Sanatana Dharma has encompassed the widest array of ideas to be discussed. The ancient tradition of Shastrartha (philosophical debates between experts) or Charvaka would not have thrived had 'offences' been censored.

Similarly, pinpointing 'offensive' lines or scenes or stanzas in modern-day works of art is a pointless exercise doomed to fail.

Limiting free expression: French writer Voltaire once said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

In a free society, the state is supposed to perform some limited functions such as security, administration, and justice. An overbearing state isn't what India needs, even if the cause is a noble one.

As long as there are takers for an idea and said idea doesn’t, say, threaten the nation’s sovereignty, thinkers and artists should be able to express themselves without fear of the state’s overreaching arm squeezing the life out of them.

Let all ideas come out. The good, the bad and the ugly. The market will take care of the rest.

Free market verdicts: Poor acting, shoddy writing, distasteful caricatures, and lack of consideration for Hindu sentiments do not go unexcused anyway. Creators are paying the price for offending Hindu sensibilities with their projects taking a hit on account of consumers.

Financiers will also be wary if such projects happen to land up on their tables in the future. This is free-market 101 — the market rewards a good offering and sinks the bad one. State involvement is unnecessary.

Islamists get power: One suggestion that's become a bit of a hot take of late is that every religion can have a representative on censor boards for films, books, articles, and art so as to ban anything that's ‘hurtful’.

But how, for instance, would an Islamist representative feel about a courageous film taking on triple talaq, nikah halala, jihad, or other Islamic ideas of kafir and ummah, considered essential to the faith?

In a scenario where free speech is arbitrarily curbed and, say, there's hyper-sensitivity among Hindus, Islamists would deny an honest assessment, which would ultimately benefit the radicals. The Hindus, meanwhile, will celebrate a ban on some movie ridiculing karwa chauth.

Better stuff to do: India has staggering diversity in the space of media and expression. With over 400 news channels, around 1,300 movies made annually, and about 100,000 publications, India presents a challenge of monumental proportions to those seeking to censor what already lies in the grey zone of subjectivity. The opportunity cost of resources to be assigned simply for protecting people’s religious sensibilities is huge.

Passive citizenry, hyperactive state: It would be a mistake to think that the job of Hindus was completed after they elected a ‘Hindu nationalist’ government in New Delhi. The Modi government is up against a well-oiled, well-funded, centuries-old project of Hindu subjugation.

The Dharmic population would do well to keep the flame burning despite the progress of the last eight years — spread awareness, educate people, call out biased leftist narratives, support Hindu causes; these are all jobs to be done by the community, not the state.

The union government can provide — as it is doing — institutional support to such endeavours, as with the recent film The Kashmir Files. But for the Hindu community to put the responsibility of furthering the Hindu cause at the government’s doorstep is dangerous lethargy at the community level.

Law and order solutions: Winston Churchill once said, "While the Hindu elaborates his argument, the Moslem sharpens his sword."

Islamist violence will scare thinkers and artists from criticising or assessing Islam. Whose job is it to prevent riots and murders? The state.

In parallel, a massive Constitutional overhaul — administrative makeover, legislative revamp, and judicial reformation — should ideally be pursued.

This is where Hindus can focus — pushing for administrative and governance reforms that shield Hindus from Islamist violence while also supporting Hindutva causes and organisations personally.

Bottom line: The Hindu community should be demanding lasting solutions that would prove to be effective and resilient even if governments with contrasting agendas make a comeback in the future. Temporary moves like arbitrarily curbing free speech are harmful.

In the ‘azadi ka amrit kaal’, one would do well to think about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement, made in a different context, when he outlined his policy of removing the government’s abhav (absence or deprivation) in the lives of people who need the state’s assistance while ensuring that the government’s needless prabhav (influence) in the lives of well-to-do Indians is also slashed.