The Hindutva-secular consensus on limits to free speech

Neither Nupur Sharma nor Mohua Moitra represent those committed to defending the freedom of expression as a principle

These are strange, somewhat difficult times. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is trying to define secularism and freedom of expression in a new light as it believes both Nupur Sharma and Mohua Moitra have outraged the sentiments of people. Interestingly, the Trinamool Congress or Congress reaction is not much different, signalling the shaping of a political consensus in the country on the issue.

Does it imply that henceforth there will be no place in this country for Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, Leena Manimekalai or another M F Hussain? Ditto with those who may like to defend them?

Here, a disclaimer is warranted: Neither Nupur Sharma nor Mohua Moitra represents those committed to defending the freedom of expression as a principle. While Nupur Sharma will never defend Leena Manimekalai or M F Hussain, Mohua Moitra is unlikely to stand by Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasreen (whose book Dwikhandito is banned in Bengal). That is why they will survive by enjoying the tacit support of their respective environments.

However, the present situation is fraught with dangers for the true defenders of freedom of expression. What is unfolding now is Newton's third law playing out in the political arena of India. Mohua Moitra has had to wage her battle almost alone after her comment on the smoking Kali controversy demonstrates how the Indian polity has taken a 180-degree turn from the 1980s when the Shah Bano verdict was reversed. Two years later, The Satanic Verses was banned, India becoming the first country to do so. Both Shah Bano and The Satanic Verses during the Rajiv Gandhi government.

Ironically, 47-year-old Mohua Moitra was not even a teenager and 37-year-old Nupur Sharma, a toddler, when the Shah Bano verdict was reversed. The two women now face, after 36 years, the consequences of the political insincerity of those days.

The Shah Bano case and the banning of Rushdie's book had a severe reaction on the Hindu mind and offered the shrewd politician that L K Advani was, a chance to exploit it with the Ram Mandir movement. Thanks to the anti-appeasement campaign, the Sangh family's political wing, first the Jana Sangh and subsequently the BJP, secured more than 10 per cent of the votes cast for the first time in 1989, and it magically almost doubled (20.07 per cent) in 1991 after the Ram Rath Yatra by Advani.

Over time, the BJP's journey from a North Indian Hindu party has culminated in swaying the minds of more than half of India's Hindus. With the secular brigade decimated, India has now become a land of assertive Hindus, which has happened because they kept silent about the attacks on the Hindus but opposed any such similar attacks against the minorities.

Unfortunately, the reaction has unnerved secular parties too. A time has come when appeasing the Hindus is increasingly finding its place in the secular brigade's agenda. They were supposed to stop the appeasement of the minorities. While they have not done that, they have started appeasing Hindus too.

That is why now the Congress quickly says it condemns attacks on Hindu gods and goddesses (about the film 'Kaali'), and the TMC distances itself from Mohua Moitra. Now a time has come when Mamata Banerjee will never again dare to stop Durga immersion for a day to make way for a Muslim religious procession. Arvind Kejriwal, too, will continue sponsoring pilgrimages to Ayodhya.

It is something akin to what Rajiv Gandhi did. After succumbing to Muslim fundamentalists, he allowed the bhumi pujan for the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya to appease the Hindus. It did not help him, but as a consequence, fundamentalists of all hues strengthened, shrinking the space for personal freedom or freedom of expression.

Ironically, the BJP has also embarked on a similar journey. To appease the Muslims of India and abroad, Narendra Modi decided to expel Nupur Sharma from the party. This move (somewhat akin to the banning of The Satanic Verses) too will generate a reaction, giving birth to new radicals within and outside the BJP. Such radicals have already started coming out. No less than Hanumangarhi seer Mahanta Raju Das has appealed to the Hindus to be as assertive against 'Kaali' as were the Muslims against Nupur Sharma's comment.

So after a gap of more than three decades of the momentous political choices of the 1980s (Shah Bano, The Satanic Verses, Ram Mandir movement), we are in a situation where both the Muslims and Hindus are likely to come out with a war cry on the slightest of 'provocations'. And those who would like to defend both Salman Rushdie and Leena Manimekalai will perhaps be banished from this country by the sparring communities.

So, have we finally obliterated the irritants of our new social verve, as Rabindranath Tagore wrote: "Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high… into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake."

(Diptendra Raychaudhuri is a journalist and author based in Kolkata)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.