Department of Theology Spring Term 2016
Master's Thesis in Human Rights 30 ECTS
Citizens as Censors
Understanding the Limits of Free Speech in India
Author: Henriette Tjäder Supervisor: Oscar Almén
Abstract This thesis aims to provide an understanding of the phenomenon of citizen censorship in India and its implications for free speech. It is especially concerned with public protests where groups of citizens demand government action in order to ban or censor controversial material. These groups tend to invoke feelings of offense or hurt religious sentiments as a justification for restriction. The point of departure of this thesis is research on social movement outcomes and the history of Indian censorship. A quantitative approach is adopted, which includes data of protest events from 2010 to 2015. The author will demonstrate that restrictions on free speech coincide with protest events in three out of ten cases. A shorter case study of the controversy surrounding the film Vishwaroopam provides a concrete example of the dynamics of citizen censorship and aims to highlight some aspects that might have affected protest outcomes. Ultimately, the author concludes that protests are likely to be influential for restrictions on free speech, and that the role of the citizen as censor should not be ignored.
Contents 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Purpose ...... 2 1.2.1 Research questions ...... 3 1.3 Material ...... 3 1.3.1 Delimitations ...... 3 1.3.2 Definitions ...... 4 1.4 Disposition ...... 5 2. Previous research and theoretical framework ...... 6 2.1 Social movement theory ...... 6 2.1.1 Censorship movements ...... 8 2.2 Censorship in India ...... 9 2.2.1 The Rangīlā Rasūl controversy ...... 10 2.2.2 A right to censor ...... 11 2.3 Freedom of expression ...... 13 2.3.1 Film certification and censorship ...... 14 3. Methodology ...... 15 3.1 Method ...... 16 4. Results ...... 18 4.1 Analysis ...... 20 5. Case study: Vishwaroopam ...... 22 6. Conclusions ...... 25 7. References ...... 28 Appendix A: Charts ...... 31 Appendix B: Protest sources ...... 32 Appendix C: Protest data ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1. Introduction 1.1 Background Anyone who follows Indian media somewhat regularly will have come across the debate regarding a rising intolerance towards opinions or acts perceived as anti-Indian or anti-Hindu. While the debate in itself is not a new phenomenon, it seems to have grown since before the national elections in 2014, which culminated in BJP’s (Bharatiya Janata Party) landslide victory. There have been numerous allegations that the government, with its ideological roots in the Hindutva movement,1 favors India’s Hindu majority and tries to suppress opinions criticizing either the government or Hinduism. Some recent incidents that have sparked debates in both traditional and social media, even outside the borders of India, include writers who have returned their national awards to protest against intolerance,2 withdrawal of “controversial” books,3 and scholars being arrested on grounds of sedition,4 just to name a few. NGO:s such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized the Indian government for using pre-colonial sedition laws to suppress free speech.5 Against this backdrop, writers, journalists and human rights activists argue that the Indian political climate is becoming increasingly intolerant towards dissenting opinions. Consequently, advocates for free speech are positioned against groups or individuals claiming offense and demanding government action. The question of where the line between freedom of expression and other rights should be drawn is ubiquitous, in India as well as in many other parts of the world.
The current debate in Indian media suggests that intolerance is the reason why it is increasingly difficult to express controversial opinions.6 Indeed, tolerance is one of the virtues in a democratic society, along with individual freedoms such as freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, therefore, is inextricably linked to tolerance - for example, levels of tolerance are usually measured by the establishing whether or not individuals are willing to extend these rights to people from groups they dislike. However, researchers on tolerance argue that "[p]olitical tolerance does not require that everything be put up with under all circumstances;
1 Hindutva, usually explained as ”Hinduness” was a term coined by V D Savarkar for building Hindu nationalist identity. While Hinduism was one of the attributes, Hindutva according to Savarkar was primarily ”[...] an ethnic community possessing a territory and sharing the same racial and cultural characteristics[...]”, descending from the time when the Aryans settled in India. See Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s (London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. , 1996). p. 26-30. 2 Ashok Vajpeyi, 'Why We Returned Sahitya Akademi Awards', The Hindu (updated 2015-10-10)
instead, it only requires free and unfettered entry for all views to the marketplace of ideas.”7 In other words, restrictions on free speech are primarily problematic if they mean that not all views can be debated in public, while some restrictions are justifiable. Traditionally, it is the prerogative of the state to determine these limitations.
In India, it is the seemingly active role of citizens in demanding government action to restrict their very own freedoms that will be of particular interest in this project. Whether it is films, books, novels or speeches- all are subjected to careful review, so as not to be offensive or objectionable in any way. Not only by government institutions, but by citizens, ready to take up action to defend moral values, religious harmony or communal peace. As one author puts it; “[t]he alarming trend that we see in India today is censorship by the mob, or in other words, the true democratization of censorship; it has ceased to be a punitive measure wielded by the government. Rather, it has become an inviolate and unwritten set of rules that are enforced by the people for the people.”8 Perhaps, freedom of speech in India is not so much characterized as a negative right in which the government would do best not to interfere, but as a right in need of positive government action to be meaningful. What does this mean for individual freedoms such as the right to express one’s views, the right to dissent and the marketplace of ideas so deeply associated with the democratic ideal? This thesis aims to provide a deeper analysis in order to better understand the limits of free speech in contemporary India.
1.2 Purpose Often labelled the worlds’ largest democracy, India is an excellent example of how rights and freedoms might come in conflict, and the challenges that might arise when trying to accommodate conflicting demands. Groups regularly demand government action to protect their rights by restricting the freedom of others – in this case freedom of speech. The reasons behind these demands vary from something being deemed offensive, hurting religious sentiments, containing obscenity or portraying a certain community in a bad light. The protestors often belong to a certain religious or ethnic community, or a certain social group. Previous research on free speech in India has shown that the act of “seeking offence” is sometimes used as a strategy to further other gains, primarily group rights and political empowerment.9 Being granted the “right to censor” has historically been perceived as a privilege, or a symbol of group significance. This thesis will therefore try to analyze the role of citizens in matters concerning free speech, in order to provide some insights to how this dynamic of “citizen censorship” can best be understood. This will be done by examining the impact of protest groups on freedom of expression by, for example, demanding a ban on a book or censoring of a film. Central to the demands are the calls for government intervention to take action against the offensive material. In a greater perspective, the thesis hopes to contribute to
7 E. Goodin Robert and L. Gibson James, 'Political Intolerance in the Context of Democratic Theory', ('Oxford University Press', 2011)., p. 15. 8 Mini Chandran, 'The Democratisation of Censorship: Books and the Indian Public', Economic and Political Weekly, 45/40 (2010), 27-31. p. 31. 9 Ameya Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship as Strategy in Indian Party Politics', Comparative Politics, 46/2 (2014), 191-208. 2
a deeper understanding of the impact of citizens on free speech regulation, and whether India’s particular arrangement of group rights constitute a possible threat to individual rights and freedoms.
Previous attempts to explain citizens’ demands for censorship have tended to focus on a limited amount of cases where censorship has occurred. This approach only highlights those cases in which citizen’s protests are successful in placing restrictions on free speech. There are few studies that also take into account those events where the government did not respond to such demands. The author argues that an analysis which includes even “failed” attempts of citizen censorship would provide a better estimate of the extent of groups’ influence. Furthermore, no quantitative studies regarding these issues have been found in the preparatory work leading up to this project. A quantitative approach, which includes all protests within a certain time frame, would therefore contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the influence of citizens on free speech regulation.
1.2.1 Research questions This thesis is guided by the attempt to understand the influence of citizens in restrictions on freedom of expression in India. The author will primarily seek to answer the following question: To what extent are citizens’ demands successful in achieving restrictions on free speech? In addition, the thesis will try to address the question of how we can better understand the dynamics of citizen censorship, for example regarding protest influence.
1.3 Material The quantitative analysis will be based on articles from the three largest10 English-language newspapers in India, namely the Times of India, Hindustan Times and The Hindu. In order to produce a significant but limited amount of data, a time period of five years has been selected. The data will be based on protests between 2010 and 2015, and the articles will be collected from the newspapers’ online and paper editions. Previous research on social movements will be used to explain some important characteristics of protest groups that are likely to influence movement outcomes. In addition, scholarly work on censorship in India will explain the origins of India’s free speech-laws and the arrangements of group rights which accommodate for the citizen’s “right to censor”.
1.3.1 Delimitations The thesis does not aim to provide a causal link between protest events and restrictions on freedom of speech. For this to be possible, a qualitative in-depth analysis would be necessary, where underlying variables such as public support and the use of violence are also taken into account. Although a qualitative case study is included to illustrate some of the findings, it will
10 According to circulation figures provided by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, 'Details of Most Circulated Publications for the Audit Period Jan June 2015', (2015). 3
not allow for a deep enough analysis to make any claims of causality. Furthermore, some of the actors participating in protests are part of larger and more influential interest groups, using a number of strategies – of which public protesting may be one of them - to exert influence over politics. While it would be useful to evaluate all such efforts and strategies, this is not possible within the scope of this thesis.
Secondly, as this project is only concerned with the impact of public protests, the purpose is not to provide a full account of the situation for freedom of expression in India. Many such records are already available; for example through Freedom House and PEN International, who have published reports regarding freedom of expression and press freedom in India.11 These reports include information on censorship, free speech-laws, bans, legal actions and informal practices that have a silencing effect on speech and expression. They do not, however, specifically analyze the ways in which citizens demand restrictions on free speech through government intervention.
Lastly, the purpose of this project is not to make any moral claims as to where the line between upholding free speech and protecting other rights and freedoms should be drawn, and it does not argue that freedom of expression should be absolute. Rather, it seeks to understand the dynamics of free speech, conflicting demands and group rights. With that said, the author comes from a background in a Western liberal democracy, and as such, it is through these eyes that the data will be analyzed and understood.
1.3.2 Definitions Freedom of expression is recognized as one of the fundamental rights in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19(2) stipulates that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”12 This will be the definition adopted in this project. Throughout the thesis, the terms “freedom of expression” and “freedom of speech” will be used interchangeably.
In order to achieve a systematic approach to data collection and analysis, it is essential to also define the concept of protest and what constitutes a protest group. Schumaker provides the following definition: “[…] citizens who do not normally interact with government officials, but who, under certain conditions (when they perceive that their interests are threatened by the activities of others or that the political system can be of use in furthering these interests) organize on an informal, issue-specific basis to make demands on public officials through
11 See for example Evan Rankin Amy Tang, Brendan De Caires, Drew Beesley, 'Imposing Silence: The Use of India's Laws to Suppress Free Speech', in Tasleem Thawar Renu Mandhane, Ann Harrison, Sarah Clarke (ed.), (Canada, UK, 2015). Also Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World: India',
pressure processes”.13 This definition is useful for understanding the most important characteristics of a protest group. However, it needs some clarification for the purpose of this thesis. For example, the line between the political and the informal is not always clear-cut, with regards to those participating in the protests. In the Indian context, protest participants might be groups with close ties to political parties (for example student wings of such parties), women’s groups with or without political affiliation, or individuals with no group association. In other words, it is difficult to establish the degree of interaction with government officials in each protest, not least in a quantitative study with a lot of data. Nonetheless, Schumaker’s definition is useful because it clarifies what is most important for the purpose of this thesis; that a protest is: 1) organized by citizens on an ad-hoc basis when there is some sort of threat or possibility of political gains, 2) the protest is issue-specific, and 3) the purpose is to make demands on public officials through the protesting action as a pressure process.
Throughout this project, the term censorship will be used both in its original meaning,14 but also as a more general term including bans or other restrictions on free speech. In other words, “citizen’s demands for censorship” describes demands for all kinds of action which aim to restrict freedom of expression.
1.4 Disposition The project will begin by introducing the theoretical framework as well as previous research relevant for the purpose of this thesis. This chapter will be divided into three parts. The first part is focused on social movements, in particular the field concerning their impacts and outcomes. It consists of an overview of extant research for evaluating outcomes of social movements such as protest groups, and gives an account of some of the external and internal factors that either facilitate or hinder their chances of influence. There will also be a short review of research on social movements and censorship. The next part of this chapter introduces research on censorship in India, both from a historical perspective and as a strategy for groups to demonstrate their significance on the political arena. It will demonstrate how demands for censorship have historically been used to further other gains related to group rights, stretching back before the time of independence when some of the most controversial free speech-laws were enacted. This section aims to show how the practice of “citizen censorship” has evolved, how it has prevailed and continues to have relevance for freedom of speech today. The third part of this chapter will present a brief summary of the international framework regarding freedom of expression, as well as an overview of the Indian laws on film censorship.
In chapter three, the thesis moves on to a discussion on methodological approaches and the operationalization of variables. This chapter also provides an account of the difficulties that were encountered during the process of data collection and analysis. It specifically addresses
13 Paul D. Schumaker, 'Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands', The Journal of Politics, 37/2 (1975), 488-521. p. 490. 14 For example; ”the process of removing parts of books, films, letters etc that are considered unsuitable for moral, religious or political reasons” according to Macmillan, 'English Dictionary for Advanced Learners', (Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2002). 5
possible implications of using news media as a source of data, and the difficulties of measuring the impact of protest groups.
The results will be presented and analyzed in chapter four. The purpose here will be to highlight and explain the most important findings from the project, as well as provide answers to the research questions. This analysis will then feed into the case study in chapter five, which seeks to illustrate the problem by giving a concrete example of citizen’s demands for censorship and government response. In light of previous research and theoretical assumptions, the case study will be helpful in order to answer the question regarding a better understanding of the dynamics of citizen censorship.
The thesis concludes by summarizing its findings and discussing these in light of possible implications for freedom of speech in India. Finally, the author suggests some ways forward for future research.
2. Previous research and theoretical framework This chapter aims to provide an overview of research and theory relevant for the focus of this thesis. The chapter is divided into three parts; the first concerning social movements and their impacts, the second regarding censorship in India, and the third providing a short review of the legal framework governing freedom of speech.
2.1 Social movement theory For more than half a century, researchers and scholars have been trying to understand how groups of people without political positions manage to achieve political change through informal channels; a classic example being the civil rights movement in the US. This field of research is called Social movement theory, but even more relevant in this context is the subfield of Social movement impact theory, which tries to explain the impacts and outcomes of social movements. Here, the focus is usually on one of three types of outcomes; political, biographical or cultural. The political consequences have received most academic attention, for example by studying policy outcomes. The scholar originally associated with this field is William A. Gamson, whose work – although criticized for having some methodological flaws – is considered an important contribution to the research on impacts of social movements and interest groups.15 Although many other scholars have contributed with important research through the years, most of the literature to date has been concerned with western contexts. One who has contributed to filling this gap is Katrin Uba who, in 2007, published a comparative analysis of anti-privatization movements in India and Peru. In her project, Uba analyzed the influence of protests in the privatization process and reached important conclusions regarding some of the characteristics which make protests successful. Among other findings, she
15 See for example Marco Giugni, 'Political, Biographical, and Cultural Consequences of Social Movements', Sociology Compass, 2/5 (2008), 1582-600. 6
concluded that protests which use disruptive strategies and have economic consequences tend to have an impact on policymaking.16
A “social movement” can be defined as “[…] actors and organizations seeking to alter power deficits and to effect social transformations through the state by mobilizing regular citizens for sustained political action.”17 It is relevant here to clarify that usually protests alone do not constitute a “movement”, but rather, the act of protesting is one of the strategies that movements may adopt to influence public policy. In order to analyze to what extent protest events are successful as a strategy in restricting freedom of expression, it is necessary to also understand which properties and strategies of movements that are likely to result in certain political outcomes. There are some areas towards which scholars generally direct their attention in order to answer these questions. These areas contain factors that tend to be either beneficial or adverse to movement success. Even though there is a lack of consensus regarding which factors that matter the most, they can largely be categorized according to movement-controlled properties (internal factors), and those that depend on context and environment (external factors).18 1) Internal factors: a. Mobilization of resources, such as members or capital. b. Organization; the strength of the movement’s organizational structures. c. Strategies, for example the framing of demands, lobbying, peaceful marches or large-scale demonstrations. 2) External factors: a. Political context; a favorable political environment enhances the probability for movement success. b. Public opinion; the degree of support from other parts of society.
The significance of external factors has been emphasized by Edwin Amenta, who argues that the political context is an important determinant when it comes to the influence of movements. The political mediation model, suggested by Amenta et al. claims that movements can have an impact on public policy as long as they operate within favorable political opportunity structures. In short, this model holds that “the impact of social movements depends on their organization and mobilization, but it is mediated by certain aspects of their political context.”19 For example, a favorable political context might amount to political allies who bring issues of movements to the political institutional arena, by incorporating these claims into their own agenda.20
Paul D. Schumaker argues that policy responsiveness – the degree to which those in the political system adopt legislation or policy congruent with the manifest demands of protest groups –
16 Katrin Uba, 'Do Protests Make a Difference? The Impact of Anti-Privatisation Mobilisation in India and Peru', (Uppsala University, 2007). p 12. 17 Edwin Amenta et al., 'The Political Consequences of Social Movements', Annual Review of Sociology, 36 (2010), 287-307. p. 14.2. 18 Giugni, 'Political, Biographical, and Cultural Consequences of Social Movements', (1583-1588). Schumaker also makes this distinction; Schumaker, 'Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands', (p. 493). See also Amenta et al., 'The Political Consequences of Social Movements', (14.10) 19 Giugni, 'Political, Biographical, and Cultural Consequences of Social Movements', (p. 1586). 20 Ibid. p 1587. 7
depends on both internal (protester-controlled) as well as external factors (Schumaker refers to these as social support).21 He also demonstrates that some external factors can in fact be influenced by groups and are not entirely out of their control. For example, the movement can adopt strategies that are more or less likely to gain public support, which, in turn, enhances the probability of movement success.22 Consequently, the most important argument to keep in mind when studying movements and their impact is that causal relationship is difficult to establish without also controlling for a significant number of underlying variables. Scholars disagree on the relative importance of these variables and their role in movement outcomes, but agree that the relationship is complex.
2.1.1 Censorship movements A significant amount of research on social movements to date has been concerned with movements’ struggles for equal rights or benefits, that is to say, the expansion of rights as opposed to their limitation. Still, demands for the proscription of offensive materials or the enactment of laws prohibiting blasphemy, are examples of issues penetrating the debate on free speech worldwide. Despite this, scholarly attention towards social movements and demands for censorship or other restrictions on free speech has been limited, although the phenomenon is neither new, nor unique for the Indian context. Jennifer Shelby, however, has analyzed the anti- vice movement in late 19th century America from a social movements’ perspective.23 The anti- vice movement, with the purpose to prohibit obscene materials, was extremely influential as it managed to persuade the government to enact a federal statute which placed significant restrictions on free speech. A brief account of some of the important characteristics surrounding this example might be beneficial towards a deeper understanding of other movements with censorship demands.
Taking note of research by Della Porta and Diani24, Shelby argues that the influence of social movements depends on the historical contexts in which they operate, their framing of ideas in order to attract supporters, as well as a common collective identity.25 She demonstrates that the anti-vice movement, NYSSV (New York Society for the Suppression of Vice), founded by Anthony Comstock, was largely a religious organization which sought to protect society from obscenities and moral degradation according to Christian ideals. As America in the 1870’s saw the rise of printed media and other technological modes of communication, Christian groups and concerned members of the upper-middle class started to worry about the spreading of sexually explicit materials. Under Comstock’s leadership, the movement managed to attract more members and became more influential.26 As we have seen from previous research on social movements, mobilization (of resources such as members and capital) can be an important
21 Schumaker, 'Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands', (p. 494-495). 22 Ibid. p. 496-497. 23 Jennifer Shelby, 'The Crusade of the Censor: Anthony Comstock and the Anti-Vice Movement', Habitus, 2/Winter 2011 (39-54.) 24 Donna Della Porta and Mario Diani, Social Movements: An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006). in Shelby, 'The Crusade of the Censor: Anthony Comstock and the Anti-Vice Movement', (p. 41-53) 25 Shelby, 'The Crusade of the Censor: Anthony Comstock and the Anti-Vice Movement', (p. 53). 26 Ibid. p. 43-44. 8
factor in determining movements’ success. In this case, mobilization largely occurred due to successful framing strategies – ”[...] a message of protection and preservation, a message with wide appeal to Americans desperate to maintain the stability of the status quo after a tumultuous civil war.”27 Furthermore, through a common collective identity, members were bound together by their concern of upholding Christian ideals, while at the same time defining their opposition. This enabled the movement to “solidify its identity as protector of Christian morality.”28 In 1873, the Act of the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use, commonly known as the “Comstock Act” was finally passed.29 The law placed further restrictions on freedom of speech with regards to what was perceived as obscene; for example information on abortions or contraceptives. Although it is difficult to establish the exact degree of this movement’s success from such a brief account of events, the adoption of legislation in line with the movement’s demands definitely indicate its influence. Three important features - mobilization, framing and the creation of a common identity, seem to have been significant for its impact. As we have seen, these are some of the features which social movement scholars usually identify when analyzing the impacts and outcomes of such movements.
The events surrounding the anti-vice movement go back a long time in history, but the movement and the context in which it operated shares important characteristics with the movements we see today. For example, mobilization is still an important factor for determining influence, even in non-western contexts. Therefore, the example might be helpful also in explaining contemporary movements’ demands for censorship and free speech-restrictions. In the next section, we turn to the Indian context for a historical account of censorship, highlighting some significant events that influenced free speech legislation at the time of independence.
2.2 Censorship in India The history of censorship in India goes back a long time. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace the origins of censorship demands back to a single point in time, some incidents seem to be of particular significance for freedom of speech today. Such is the case of the controversy surrounding Rangīlā Rasūl, in the mid- to late 1920’s. Julia Stephens argue that the case of Rangīlā Rasūl “[…] shows the mutual interdependence of expressions of religious injury, debates about legal regulation, and arguments about political rights.”30 For example, it was this controversy that prompted the British government to enact section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which is still being used to silence authors and artists in India, and evolved into the infamous blasphemy laws in Pakistan.31 Thus, the Rangīlā Rasūl controversy might help us in understanding the role of the public in regulating free speech in India, and how religious
27 Ibid.p. 47. 28 Ibid. p. 49. 29 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 'Comstock Act',
sentiments came to be embedded in India’s secular law.32 Apart from this, appeals to group sentiments played a significant role during the drafting of India’s Constitution. The manner in which individual rights were incorporated in the Constitution for example, is likely to have contributed to the status of free speech vis-á-vis other rights. In a larger perspective these events, taken together, might hold the seeds of what eventually expanded into the practice of citizens’ demands for government intervention and censorship.
2.2.1 The Rangīlā Rasūl controversy In 1924, the pamphlet Rangīlā Rasūl (”the colorful Prophet”) was released in Lahore by a publisher named Mahashay Rajpal. It was a satirical work that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad in a derogatory manner by mocking his sexual morality.33 The publisher shortly faced charges under section 153A of the Indian Penal Code; which prohibits any acts that promote ”[...] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities [...]”.34 Criminal proceedings went on for several years until Rajpal was finally acquitted by Punjab High Court, amidst fierce protests by the Muslim community. Following this, there were complaints that India’s secular law failed to protect the Muslim minority, and that it only catered to the Hindu majority population.35 Therefore, in 1927, the British government started taking steps towards an amendment to the Indian Penal Code, which subsequently resulted in the adoption of section 295A. Section 295A prohibits ”[...] any deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.”36 The section was highly contested from the beginning, not least by Hindu groups who felt that the government had given in to minority demands. Keeping in mind that the 1920’s saw widespread communal violence between Hindus and Muslims, the issue was extremely sensitive and the role of religion in national politics was widely debated.37
In explaining the debates leading up to the adoption of Section 295A, Stephens argues that the Rangīlā Rasūl case represents a ”micro-history” of larger events that unfolded in the years before partition, in the form of attempts to promote communal harmony.38 The events of the 1920’s might have been a start of the democratization of religious sentiments, in a way which continues to this day. The question in this context is how censorship demands came to be such an integral part of democratic political strategy, and it is towards this larger picture that we now turn.
32 Ibid. p. 47. 33 Ibid. p. 48-49. 34 Government of India, 'The Indian Penal Code', Indian Kanoon
2.2.2 A right to censor How are the events in the beginning of the 20th century significant for understanding the limits of free speech in India today? Somehow, government censorship seemed to be considered a gift from the state, something desirable, worth fighting for – almost a right in itself. Ameya Balsekar argues that “having the ‘right to censor’ has been established as a sign of a cultural group’s substantive political empowerment in the Indian constitutional order’s particular negotiation of socio-cultural diversity.”39 In other words, being able to censor has become something advantageous in Indian society, due to events that took place in the years pre- and post- independence. This continuity between the present and the past, Balsekar argues, is often ignored in contemporary studies on Indian censorship. He suggests that the “right to censor” has become an integral part of India’s multicultural democracy due to several reasons. For example, cultural and religious revivalism were prominent ideals during the struggle for Swarāj (self-rule), and appeals to religious sentiments were important for politicians in gaining support in the years leading up to independence. In the framing of the Indian Constitution, no other event influenced its content to the same extent as the violence following the partition of India in 1947. This, according to Balsekar, resulted in individual rights being compromised while minority rights and group rights, especially of Hindus, were relatively expansive. 40 In fact, the drafters of the Constitution looked upon individual rights, particularly civil liberties, as “gifts of the state” rather than natural rights,41 and held that the state had a particular responsibility in protecting cultural, religious, ethnic and linguistic groups’ own preservation.42 While group rights were quite extensive, they were not granted to all groups but only to those who were politically mobilized and influential at the time, and could pose a threat to public order if their demands were rejected.43 This could be looked upon as an incentive for groups to mobilize and demonstrate their political significance, in order to be granted with group rights. So how did this dynamic of particular group rights play out, and how did censorship become a tool to be used by groups to further their own interests?
Balsekar suggests that part of the answer lies in how democracies prioritize rights of (cultural) groups in contrast to individual rights in diverse, multicultural societies. Some multicultural arrangements, like that of India, tend to restrict individual autonomy in the interest of group preservation. Balsekar refers to this as “[…]’Gandhian multiculturalism’: the notion that all individuals, regardless of group membership, ought to accept limits on their autonomy out of respect for all groups’ cultural sentiments” (emphasis in the original).44 He describes this as an informal and contextual arrangement, advocated by Mahatma Gandhi in the 1920’s, where Hindus and Muslims should show respect towards one another’s sentiments in order to achieve complete unity. It is not difficult to imagine how individual speech rights would conflict with group values and religious sentiments, given this particular arrangement.
39 Ameya Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship and the Constitution of Democratic Politics in India', (Cornell University, 2009). p 5. 40 Ibid. p. 125-126. 41 Ibid. p. 126, 184. 42 Ibid. p. 136. 43 Ibid. p. 139-140. 44 Ibid. p. 22. 11
The notion of the state as a guardian of group preservation was demonstrated in the case of Rangīlā Rasūl, and the adoption of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. However, another event of censorship demands occurred at the same time, in the case of the book Mother India. The release of Mother India in 1927 sparked an outrage among the Hindu community for its critique on Hinduism and Hindu society, and Indian representatives in the Central Legislative Assembly demanded that the book should be proscribed due to the public unrest it caused.45 Balsekar notes that the first reference to Mother India in the Assembly appear on the very same day that Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code was enacted. However, the colonial government did not ban Mother India, something that seemed discriminatory to many Hindu groups, especially given the fact that the enactment of Section 295A was seen as a concession to Muslims.46 The cases of Rangīlā Rasūl and Mother India thus demonstrate how the failure of the government to accommodate censorship demands was interpreted as political neglect of the offended group at the hands of the government.
Balsekar describes that post-independence Indian censorship policy was mainly influenced by Hindu revivalist concerns in constructing the Indian society and protecting it from obscenities and objectionable material. As more groups started to seek political influence, the notion of censorship rights was closely connected to political empowerment.47 The right to censor, according to Balsekar, has a significant symbolic value; both as a substitute for material benefits from the political power-holders to their voters, and also as a substitute for participatory linkages within political parties between the elite and lower-level party members.48 He has shown that the symbolic value of censorship in acting as a substitute for material incentives, is particularly effective for groups that are politically under-represented or marginalized. By “seeking offence” and mobilizing around controversial issues, groups signal their significance as a group and a potential vote-bank for incumbent politicians. 49 Furthermore, as an internal strategy for political parties, Balsekar argues that symbolic strategies such as engaging around emotional issues is used as a tool “[…] with which to keep party members occupied as well as to galvanize their support bases, particularly as elections approach.”50 To summarize, demanding censorship has been used as a strategy of groups to show their relative neglect in comparison to other groups, while at the same time mobilizing to show their political significance as a vote bank.
The “right to censor” inherent in Indian legislation inevitably contrasts with freedom of expression’s “right to speak” as we know it. Section 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code are commonly invoked in today’s free speech controversies. Next, we turn to a summary of the international framework of freedom of expression in order to place the Indian experience in a
45 Ibid. p. 154. 46 Ibid. p. 156. 47 Ibid. p 28-29, 151. 48 Ibid. p 35. 49 Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship as Strategy in Indian Party Politics', (192,195) and Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship and the Constitution of Democratic Politics in India', (53, 181). 50 Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship and the Constitution of Democratic Politics in India', (p 37.) 12
human rights-context. This will be followed by a short overview of Indian film regulation, which is of particular interest for the purpose of this thesis.
2.3 Freedom of expression The basis for international human rights law is that individuals have certain rights which are protected and promoted by the state. Freedom of expression, while commonly considered to be one of the most fundamental rights (at least in Western liberal tradition), is also one of the more controversial that often collides with other rights and freedoms. However, like many of the universally recognized human rights, freedom of expression is not absolute. This freedom can be subject to several restrictions given certain situations and contexts, for example with regards to the protection of public order. Laws on hate speech and sedition are just some examples of regulations that limit free speech in most countries, and require that a balance is struck between freedom of expression and other rights.
The fact that one individual’s right to express his or her views sometimes conflict with another’s religious conviction, ethnicity or values is not a new phenomenon. Neither is government intervention to restrict freedom of expression, whether it is by means of censorship, bans, or withdrawal of controversial books. However, freedom of expression by definition implies protection of even the most unpopular views. As the European Court of Human Rights struck down in the oft-cited landmark case Handyside v. UK, freedom of expression “[…] is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.”51 This quote highlights the very essence of freedom of speech; it is the views that are offensive or controversial that are in need of protection. Recalling the Indian arrangement of a Gandhian multiculturalism which places restrictions on individual freedom to accommodate for group sentiments, one might wonder how these principles might be reconciled.
Freedom of expression is mentioned in several human rights documents, but the one most commonly referred to is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). ICCPR was accessed by India in 1979, and since then it is also legally binding on the state. Article 19 of the ICCPR stipulates that any restrictions on freedom of expression “[…] shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”52 The Indian government has made a reservation to this article, declaring that it “[…] shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution of India”.53 According to the Indian Constitution, freedom of expression may be restricted “[…] in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
51 European Court of Human Rights, 'Case of Handyside V. United Kingdom', (Application no. 5493/72; Strasbourg, 1976). 52 United Nations, 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights'. 53 Declarations and reservations, ibid. 13
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”54 As we have already seen, the framing of the Constitution in itself was largely an arrangement of accommodating group rights and sentiments, paving the way for informal arrangements of free speech regulation. The Indian laws regarding cinema and film certification are a case in point.
2.3.1 Film certification and censorship The Cinematograph Act was passed in 1952, and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC, commonly known as the “Censor Board”) was thereby established. The Board is a statutory body under the Ministry for Information and Broadcasting, and its members are appointed by the central government.55 Today, there are several regional CBFC offices working under a common Chairperson. The Board is responsible for certifying all films before they are released, and suggests cuts to be made according to their guidelines, to ensure that the film is appropriate for the Indian audience. Censoring films prior to public exhibition is deemed “[…] not only desirable but also necessary” due to the particular impact of films – the combination of pictures and sounds in the darkness of the theatre – on the viewer’s mind.56 In some cases, if a film is expected to raise controversy, the film is screened to an “advisory panel”, usually composed of individuals from a community likely to object to the film’s content, prior to release.57
In 1953, the Cinematograph Act was amended to allow the executive to impose two month- bans on films, despite a film being cleared by the Board.58 At this time, there had been complaints that the Board was not doing enough “to protect Indian society from moral degradation and corruption”59, since many films clearly contained offensive material. This critique has been raised even in recent controversies when outraged communities demand bans on films that have been certified and cleared for public viewing. These two month-bans are usually imposed by a state government to avoid the risk of violent outbreaks or disruptions of law and order in the state. In 1986, the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act was promulgated and incorporated into the CBFC’s guidelines, after women’s groups had started protesting against the derogatory portrayal of women in films in the early 1980’s.60
Despite being a government body responsible for deciding on film certification and censorship, the general public has, what might even be interpreted as a duty, of reviewing films. This is manifest, for example, in the procedure of an “advisory panel” where a selected number of individuals are given the privilege of regulating free speech. The role of each citizen as a public “watchdog” to protect society from moral degradation, is further manifested in the Board’s
54 Government of India, 'Constitution of India', (India, 1949). 55 Central Board of Film Certification, 'About Cbfc',
guidelines and FAQ-section on their website. For example, the Board issues the following advice to the general public; “[T]he next time you are offended by anything projected on the large screen, do not walk out but kindly act, since your action may safeguard the morals of your fellow citizens and protect the children of this country.”61
3. Methodology The purpose of the thesis is to identify government response to public demands for censorship or bans. It is an attempt to evaluate whether or not protests groups are successful in meeting their demands. “Government restrictions” will be used as the dependent variable, with values of either “yes/partly”, “no”, or “N/A” (for cases where the outcome was not known). The author suggests the following operationalization: success is achieved when the demands of a protest group are met, either through censorship or bans. In cases where the government did not interfere (at least to the author’s knowledge) by accommodating protest-group demands but the controversial issue was stopped nonetheless, the protest will be categorized as partially successful. This might occur if a publisher chooses to withdraw a book from the market due to public outrage, or a film producer decides to change the title of a film so as to accommodate the offended group. Partially successful protests will be categorized together with successful protests. The independent variable is “public demands for restrictions on free speech”, for example through censorship or bans.
When studying the impacts of social movement strategies such as protests, some challenges arise which are worth keeping in mind. One of these involves the difficulties of establishing movement success. In many cases, movements may succeed in reaching part of their goals or the results might be difficult to measure. There may also be several unforeseen side effects of the protest, which are either beneficial or adverse to the movement’s goals. The straightforward operationalization of success adopted in this thesis is an attempt to overcome this concern. Another difficulty lies in the issue of causality, that is, whether or not policy change would occur regardless of the movements’ efforts. This is a major concern for any scholar attempting to assign responsibility for policy change to a certain group. In order to draw any causal conclusions one would need to perform a larger study, which is not the purpose of this thesis.
In order to answer the research questions and analyze the relationship between protests and restrictions, a quantitative study will be conducted. This enables an analysis of a large number of protests and an overview of protests vis-á-vis restrictions on free speech. There will be a comparative perspective since the design of the study takes into account every protest aiming to restrict freedom of expression over a given period of time. Even protests that did not result in government action will be considered. This will allow for a complete analysis of successful as well as failed attempts to produce policy change, and help us understand the extent of public influence on free speech policy. While the quantitative approach will be the main focus for this thesis, a smaller qualitative case study of one of the protest events from the selected time period
61 Central Board of Film Certification, 'Film Certification ', Conclusion. 15
will also be included. The case study aims to incorporate previous research, theory and the findings from the quantitative analysis in order to illustrate the dynamics of citizen censorship by way of a specific example.
3.1 Method The quantitative study will be based on news reports of protests that aim to place restrictions on freedom of speech. It is assumed that any protest with possible implications for freedom of speech will be reported in at least one of India’s major newspapers – the Times of India, The Hindu and Hindustan Times. A database (Factiva) will be used to search all newspapers, both paper and online versions, simultaneously. The articles will provide data on protests as well as their outcomes, that is, whether or not freedom of speech was restricted or not. Relying on articles from media has both advantages as well as disadvantages. It has the benefit of being easily accessible, especially within the limited time frame for this thesis. However, relying on news reports as a source does raise questions of reliability, such as the credibility of the sources. This was overcome as far as possible by using several different newspapers, which also limited the risks of any protests going unnoticed. The newspapers cover somewhat different regions and, taken together, provide data for the whole country. Articles from different newspapers regarding the same protests were compared and the results taken together in an attempt to provide an accurate account of events. The issue of reliability is again relevant when assessing protest outcomes. Relying on news reports for this was sometimes difficult, due to the fact that outcomes were not reported to the same extent as protest events. This resulted in a number of protests where the outcomes were unclear, and these are the ones categorized as N/A below. In the end, using news reports as a source of protest events was predominantly useful because it resulted in a significant amount of data, covering protests around the country. A downside is that the news reports sometimes lacked enough information to allow for categorization. The lack of data on outcomes, albeit unfortunate, is unlikely to have any consequences for the analysis since it affects only a limited number of protest events. Either way, these are categorized and reported as unknown when presenting the results.
In order to produce as accurate results as possible when searching the database for articles on protests, search phrases were carefully developed to generate the desired data.62 In the end, the phrases and filters that were chosen were deliberately generous to allow for manual selection of articles corresponding to the purpose of the thesis. Filtering articles under the subject of “Civil Disruption”, initially proved useful, although a significant amount of articles had to be sorted out manually for focusing on other issues than freedom of expression. Unfortunately, while collecting data, the author noticed that the number of protests seemed to decrease significantly every year (going back from 2015 to 2010), and some well-known protests were overlooked by the “Civil Disruption”-filter. Therefore, the time period had to be manually covered again, using only the search phrases without filter. This resulted in more data on
62 The search phrases used for the manual search was the following: All of these words: protest*, At least one of these words: censor*, ban, banned, None of these words: bank*, banner*. One year was selected at a time, and the results were limited to the Indian region. 16
protests which had otherwise been overlooked. While this process was very time consuming, the risk of any protests going unnoticed was left to a minimum.
After locating all the articles, they were repeatedly read and the contents were categorized according to the list in Appendix C. Some protests had to be sorted out due to lack of data, or because they only involved a couple of people. For example, the widely debated “Wendy Doniger controversy”63 was not included due to the fact that the protesting actor was, more or less, only one person. Protests in different states regarding the same controversy were treated as separate protests, as government response could differ between states. However, if protests in several states led to a restriction on a national level, the protests were regarded as one and the same, as there was only one governmental decision with the same effect in all states.64 The protests were also categorized into groups of actors, depending on the protesting groups’ affiliation according to the newspaper articles, when this information was available. There were usually several actors taking part in most of the protests. However, they could be roughly categorized according to “religious groups”, “Dalit/tribal/ethnic groups”, “women’s groups” and “other”; comprising of student unions, local party leaders, or any other group of which there were only a few protests each. The religious groups were subsequently divided into subcategories according to religious affiliation; Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians (no protests of other religious groups were reported).
The categorization of protest outcomes was not entirely unproblematic due to the fact that as we all know, real-life events rarely fit into neatly organized categories. For example, there is no doubt that a restriction on freedom of expression has occurred when a group of individuals enter a cinema hall and forcibly stop the screening of a movie. However, to classify each such event as a restriction seems to be too broad and risks generating a misleading result, where minor restrictions on freedom of expression are deemed equal to those that have more far- reaching consequences. On the other hand, the protest group might not have succeeded in achieving a restriction of the issue at hand, but there might other beneficial side-effects following the protest that could work as a deterrence in the future. For example, in a case regarding controversial rapper Honey Singh, the protesters demanded a ban on the songs and that the artist should be arrested. While the songs were not banned, Singh was arrested, and therefore the protest was at least partially successful. In trying to overcome the issues of establishing whether or not a restriction has occurred, the author chose to classify outcomes similar to the above as partially successful, since they nonetheless have consequences for free speech.
63 Singh, 'Penguin Pulls out Wendy Doniger's Book 'the Hindus' from India', and Nilanjana Bhowmick, 'Sex, Lies and Hinduism: Why a Hindu Activist Targeted Wendy Doniger's Book', Time Magazine
4. Results The method for collecting data resulted in information on 114 separate protest events from January 2010 until the end of December 2015. The geographical scope of the study covers protests in most of the Indian states and Union Territories, however, most of the protests took place in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh. Overall, films seemed to cause the most controversies; out of 114 protests in total, 81 were aimed towards the restrictions of films. Since many films are subjected to cuts by the Central Board of Film Certification prior to release, most demands for government action requested that a film should be banned or sent back to the CBFC for review. There were also some books, speeches, plays, songs, posters and festival programs that caused protests. Demands were concerned with banning, boycotting, arresting artists or refusing to grant permit to speakers. A list of all the data gathered on these protests is found in Appendix C and, unless otherwise stated, all references are taken from the collected material. The diagram below demonstrates the total amount of protests during our time period, as well as the rate of successful and non-successful outcomes:
Protest outcomes
10,5% 29,0%
60,5%
Successful or partly successful Not successful N/A
Out of a total number of 114 protests, three out of ten were met with success (29%), while most of the protests (60.5%) did not result in any restrictions. For the remaining 10.5% where there was no data available regarding the outcome, it is likely that most of these are events where restrictions did not occur. This assumption is based on the process of going through the articles, where even minor restrictions were reported in the news. It is likely that any official decisions on behalf of the government to restrict freedom of speech would have been reported in at least one of the newspapers used for the study. However, since there is no evidence to support this assumption, the outcomes are preferably treated as unknown.
Looking at the results on a more detailed level, we notice that the number of protest events have increased dramatically in 2015 compared to previous years. A chart showing the number of protests each year is available in Appendix A. The year with the least number of protests was that of 2010, our point of departure for this study. In 2010, there was a total number of 11 protest events to restrict free speech. Each of these concerned separate controversies, from doctors demanding the removal of posters which allegedly promoted smoking, to the controversial
18
banning of James Laine’s book Shivaji: Hindu King in Muslim India. 2011 saw 12 protests in total, however some of these were regarding the same controversy, with protests taking place in several states. Such was the case of the film Aarakshan, which caused protests in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Although the film was not met with any restrictions in these states, it was banned in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab.65 In 2012, 19 protests were reported. The film Innocence of Muslims, which was released online, sparked an outrage among the Muslim community. Protests occurred in six states throughout the country, demanding that the film should be banned due to its depictions of Islam. The film was subsequently made unavailable for streaming on YouTube in India. Another noteworthy event in 2012 occurred when both Hindu and Muslim groups took to the streets in Chandigarh to demand a ban on the shooting of the film Zero Dark Thirty (ZD 30), for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. There was, however, no response from the government to meet the protestors’ demands. The next year, 2013, experienced a total number of 15 protests, three of them taking place in more than one state. Interestingly enough, all of these met with different results. The films Madras Café, Shootout at Wadala and Vishwaroopam were, to at least some degree, restricted in one of the states but not the other. Shootout at Wadala generated protests in Madhya Pradesh and Punjab, but was only banned in Punjab. Similarly, protests against Madras Café occurred in both West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. Whereas the film could be released in West Bengal, cinemas in Tamil Nadu refused to screen the film due to its depictions of the Tamil Tigers (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, LTTE). The case study of Vishwaroopam below will try to explain how in this case, protests in one state came to be successful, while the other was not. In 2014, there were 19 protests. Five of them can be attributed to the release of the film PK, which met with loud protests from Hindu groups for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. Despite the heavy protests, no government action was taken to impose restrictions on the film. Quite the contrary – Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party), decided to exempt the film from entertainment tax to encourage more people to watch it.66 The film Kaum de Heere, which is based on the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, faced protests in Punjab. The film has been barred from release in India, and is the only film apart from Innocence of Muslims that has been stopped nationwide during this period. In 2015, the protests against PK continued, among a total number of 38 protests. This dramatic rise can be partially explained due to the fact that both PK and the film MSG – The Messenger, generated protests in several states. The release of MSG – The Messenger resulted in a lot of controversy between the Sikh community and the followers of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the star of the film. Sikh groups demanded that the film should be banned for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. There were also widespread counter-protests from followers of the Guru, who opposed a ban on the film.67 Ultimately, the film was banned only in the state of Punjab. The film’s sequel, MSG2 – The messenger, released later in 2015 and caused protest among tribal communities due to its depiction of tribals and adivāsīs. The film met with protests in Uttarakhand, Jharkhand
65 The bans were lifted at a later stage, but it is noteworthy that none of these states experienced protests large enough to make headlines in any of the larger Indian newspapers. 66 The Times of India, 'In Several Places, Shows Cancelled after Protests', The Times of India - Jaipur Edition, 1 January 2015. 67 These counter-protests have not been included in the collection of data, since they did not meet the criteria of demanding restrictions on free speech. 19
and Chhattisgarh, and was ultimately banned by the Chief Ministers in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.
Breaking down the data into groups of protesters demonstrate that religious groups account for a little more than half of the total number of protests. Other groups that the author was able to identify were women’s groups and Dalit/tribal/ethnic communities. The “other” category consists of groups that did not occur often enough to be categorized separately; such as student groups, wings of political parties, lawyers, doctors, etc. Out of the religiously motivated protests, Hindus account for 57.8%, Sikhs 18.8%, Muslims 15.6%, and Christians 7.8%. Additional charts demonstrating the number of protests for each group can be found in Appendix A. Since there were only a limited number of protests attributed to each, it would not be meaningful or statistically significant to further analyze the degree of success between groups.
Government response varies significantly; from no action to outright bans. Other actions have been to not grant permit to speakers, arresting artists, suspending the screening of controversial films or ordering the removal of scenes. There have also been more far-reaching responses, such as a state government announcing that they are working on a policy to ban songs containing obscene lyrics68 or allegedly passing a resolution on legislation aimed at prohibiting offensive writing against caste and religion.69 Naturally, protests occur also as a response to government restrictions, usually arguing that the restrictions violate freedom of speech. These protests, however, have been excluded from the study as they are not the focus for this thesis.
4.1 Analysis The results show that protest groups’ demands for censorship coincide with restrictions on free speech in 29% of the cases. Again, without a deeper analysis it is difficult to make any claims of causality. We cannot know whether these restrictions would have occurred in the absence of protests. The observation that some states have imposed bans despite any record of protests indicates that there is more to the phenomenon of citizen censorship than meets the eye. However, it is likely that a protest is at least a significant contributing factor to why these restrictions are imposed, especially if the government fears a disturbance of public order. Theories on social movements have demonstrated that groups might use public protesting as a strategy for reaching their demands, and that in the Indian context, protests that cause disruption or have economic consequences tend to be influential.70 For example, state governments have the possibility to impose bans on films to avoid a disturbance of public order. Violence, or the threat of violence, might therefore be significant for determining the likelihood of demands
68 This was the response of the Punjab government when women’s groups protested against songs with obscene lyrics. 69 State government of Maharashtra issued this response during the controversy surrounding James Laine’s book Shivaji – The Hindu King in Muslim India. 70 Uba, 'Do Protests Make a Difference? The Impact of Anti-Privatisation Mobilisation in India and Peru', (p. 12). 20
resulting in government action.71 In this case, there were several protests where participants would forcibly enter cinema halls to stop films from being screened, burning effigies of authors, actors or politicians, staging road blocks or observing bandhs72. These tactics, if they are deemed to pose a threat to public order, should increase the likelihood of government response to take action towards the controversy behind the unrest.
Previous research has also shown that mobilization around symbolic issues such as demands for censorship has been used to signal a group’s relative neglect, as well as their significance as a vote-bank for incumbent politicians. It would therefore be of interest to see whether some groups tend to use this approach more than others. Specifically, if those groups perceive themselves as marginalized or under-represented. In this project, any assumptions of different groups’ degree of success would lack statistical significance given the limited amount of data. However, data of protests from a five-year period would at least be sufficient to decide on the frequency of protests attributed to each group. For example, while Hindus make up nearly 80% of the Indian population,73 Hindu groups were responsible for only 58% of the religiously motivated protests. Sikhs and Christians on the other hand, are over-represented relative to their population, while Muslim-group protests are fairly equivalent to their numbers. Balsekar argued that marginalized groups are more likely than other groups to make censorship demands.74 The data from this study seems to lend prima facie support to this argument, if we assume that groups from minority religions are more likely to consider themselves socially marginalized or politically under-represented. Mobilizing around symbolic issues such as the proscription of offensive films or books, might serve the additional purpose of political empowerment. For incumbent politicians wanting to secure support, it could be strategically beneficial to accommodate censorship demands from minority groups; a confirmation of that group’s significance. A larger study over a longer period of time and a qualitative approach would be useful to demonstrate whether or not this hypothesis is true.
Framing, i.e. how groups choose to present their demands, can be another powerful strategy for attracting members and social support, which, in turn, would increase the chances of success. The data in Appendix C demonstrates that many religious groups, for example, claim “hurt religious sentiments” when they put forward their demands for censorship. Whether or not this is a successful strategy for gaining support would have to be the subject of another study, but the very claim of having one’s sentiments hurt could be of significance. Previous research has demonstrated how religious sentiments came to occupy a unique position in Indian free-speech legislation through what Balsekar calls the Gandhian multiculturalism; the notion that individual rights and freedoms should be limited out of respect for groups’ sentiments. Indeed, some of the arguments of protest groups refer to the risk of generating hatred among groups or
71 The influence of violence was not the focus for this project, and as such has not been taken into account. However, the articles from which data was collected indicate that many of the protests would probably be considered as disruptive. 72 A bandh, similar to a strike, is a form of civil disobediance aimed to disrupt community order, usually with economic consequences, for example through the closing of shops. 73 India Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, 'C-01 Population by Religious Community', in Ministry of Home Affairs (ed.), (Government of India, 2011). 74 Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship and the Constitution of Democratic Politics in India', (p. 181). 21
destabilizing communal harmony if the controversy is not stopped. There seems to be a perception that hurt religious sentiments could have far-reaching consequences for peaceful relations between groups. Similarly, the historical emphasis that has been given to group rights as opposed to individual rights might be of significance. The Indian constitution and free-speech legislation were enacted at a time when group rights were understood as essential for Indian unity, whilst individual rights such as freedom of expression were thought of merely as “gifts of the state”. Perhaps the phenomenon of citizen censorship can be understood as an attempt to accommodate individual rights within the interest of group preservation and unity. This arrangement seems to endow groups with rights and citizens with duties. It is the duty of the individual to refrain from insulting his fellow citizens, as well as it is his duty to act upon offensive material likely to disturb communal harmony. Concerned citizens seeking to act in the interest of group preservation and empowerment might have a chance of success in using protests as a strategy towards this goal. In this case, it would make sense to use strategies of mobilization around symbolic issues such as the demands for censorship. It would make sense to appeal to legislation which prohibits acts that hurt their sentiments, and it would make sense to use protests as a disruptive strategy to increase the probability of success
We cannot draw any additional conclusions regarding citizen censorship apart from the observation that most of the protests did not coincide with restrictions on free speech, but there was a restrictive response in 29% of the cases. This is the most important finding from this project. The sudden increase of protests in 2015 is puzzling, and even when accounting for protests that occurred in several states, it is clear that the number of protests is significantly higher than in earlier years. Whether this depends on the release of more controversial films or books, a rising intolerance among citizens, or something else, can only be established through a deeper analysis based on qualitative studies. A continued effort to document protests in 2016 as well as years ahead would demonstrate whether the high number of protests in 2015 was a deviation or part of an increasing trend. Still, the fact that three out of ten censorship demands coincide with some form of restriction on free speech is remarkable. This seems to indicate that the power to censor is not only a privilege of the government, but that the state is quite sensitive to public demands in free speech issues. This also lends support to the argument that protest groups are, at least to some extent, influential. An analysis of the circumstances surrounding the film Vishwaroopam will seek to demonstrate the dynamics behind censorship demands through a concrete example.
5. Case study: Vishwaroopam Vishwaroopam, a Tamil action film directed by Kamal Haasan and released in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi, was the target of a lot of controversy in 2013 when it was due to be released. This chapter will briefly explore the events surrounding the controversy, in an attempt to provide some insights into the dynamics of citizen censorship. The case has been selected as an illustrative example based on the results of the quantitative study above, which demonstrated that protests regarding Vishwaroopam occurred in both Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. However, the state governments adopted quite contradictive responses to the protest events. An 22
analysis of Vishwaroopam might be helpful in order to understand the phenomenon of citizen censorship, and why some protests are effective while others are not. Previous research as well as results from the quantitative study will be used in an attempt to highlight some of the events that might have had significance for the way governments chose to respond. The circumstances of Vishwaroopam should provide a good example of illustrating citizens’ influence, as well as the characteristics that might increase protest success.
Vishwaroopam was the target of complaints in Tamil Nadu already in the summer of 2012 for having a title in Sanskrit despite being a Tamil film.75 These complaints did not, however, receive much attention, and the film kept its original title. The Tamil version of Vishwaroopam was cleared by the Central Board of Film Certification in October 2012. After being faced with several cuts,76 the film received a U/A certificate; unrestricted public exhibition with parental guidance. In early 2013, the director, Haasan, received complaints from cinema owners in Tamil Nadu, after he had announced that the film would be released through a direct-to-home service one day ahead of its theatrical premiere. In response to their complaints, the director eventually agreed to their demands, and the film was set to release in theatres on January 25th.77 However, the film soon faced complaints from Muslim organizations in Tamil Nadu, primarily the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK),78 who demanded a special screening of the film prior to its release. They expressed concern over how Muslims were depicted, even though the film had been cleared by the CBFC. A failure to accommodate this demand of a special screening would result in peaceful protests, according to group leaders.79 According to news reports, representatives from Muslim organizations had also met with the Tamil Nadu government officials and submitted a memorandum in support for their cause.80 On January 21st, a special screening was held to Muslim representatives, whereby they objected to the film’s content and demanded that the film should be banned, due to its depiction of Islam and Muslims as terrorists. Following this, the Tamil Nadu government swiftly imposed a two-week ban on the film, citing a risk of law and order problems.81
The director, Kamal Haasan, appealed to the Madras High Court to overturn the government’s decision to ban the film. By this time, the controversy had gained the attention of the federal government as well as the Central Board of Film Certification. Both criticized the government in Tamil Nadu for banning a film that had already been cleared by the Board.82 On January 28th,
75 Mohammad Ismail Khan, 'Vishwaroopam Ban: Do Muslim Groups Have Strong Case?', Kashmir Monitor, 30 January 2013. 76 Central Board of Film Certification, 'Vishwaroopam Cut List',
the Madras High Court urged the parties to the conflict to try to settle the matter amicably, and the following day, a single judge of the court decided to lift the ban.83 Following the verdict, there were reports of petrol bombs being hurled at cinema halls in at least two locations in the state.84 The Tamil Nadu government immediately appealed against the judgment, and the ban was re-imposed by a bench of two other judges the very next day. According to news reports, Haasan expressed “[…] I believe that along with my Muslim friends I have been [an] instrument in a political game. I don’t know who is playing it.”85 He ultimately agreed to make cuts to the film in order to facilitate its release. On February 2nd, a tripartite meeting occurred between the parties to the conflict as well as government representatives, and an agreement was reached to edit out audio and make cuts in seven scenes of the film.86 The film was eventually released in cinemas across Tamil Nadu on February 7th.
In Uttar Pradesh, the events unfolded quite differently. Muslim organizations had demanded that the film (Vishwaroop in Hindi) should not be released without the deletion of objectionable scenes which hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims.87 Following the events in Tamil Nadu, government officials of the ruling Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh announced that they would review the film and agree on its release if it was not found objectionable. The film was released as planned on February 1st, amidst tight police security and reportedly peaceful protesting from Muslim organizations.88
How can the same film be faced with such completely contradictive responses? The swift response and commitment by the Tamil Nadu government to ban the film is perhaps what’s most remarkable about this controversy. The events that unfolded in the two states had few things in common, apart from the subject of controversy as well as the offended group. This being equal, there must be some other important aspects of the circumstances that made the protests more or less likely to meet with success. First of all, the Muslim population in Tamil Nadu is significantly smaller than that of Uttar Pradesh. Muslims make up 5.9% of the population in Tamil Nadu and 19.3% of the population in Uttar Pradesh. This might be significant when it comes to mobilization, which is likely to be perceived differently from the two state governments. In Tamil Nadu, they were organized early on in demanding a special screening of the film. By being granted this, they were inevitably also granted to have a say regarding the film’s fate; a “right to censor”. Secondly, the Muslim groups in Tamil Nadu had some degree of political connection with the ruling party at the time. Therefore, we could draw the conclusion that they were operating in a somewhat favorable political context by having access to decision makers. Another incident that might be of significance is the violence that occurred in connection with the protests in Tamil Nadu, as opposed to in Uttar Pradesh. As the ban was temporarily lifted, there were immediate reports of bombs being thrown at cinema
83 A Subramani, 'Try Settling the Issue Amicably, Hc Tells Haasan', The Times of India, 29 January 2013. 84 Emmanuel Gladwin, 'Vishwaroopam: Banned, Released, Banned Again', Pune Mirror, 31 January 2013. 85 Asian News International, 'Madras Hc Stays Release of 'Vishwaroopam', Kamal Haasan May Approach Sc', Asian News International, 30 January 2013. 86 Karthick S, 'Finally, 'Vishwaroopam' Set for Release in State', The Times of India, 3 February 2013. 87 Virendra Nath Bhatt, 'Ignoring Muslim Groups,up Govt Releases Vishwaroopam', Tehelka Daily, 1 February 2013. 88 The Hindu, 'Vishwaroopam Released in U.P. Amid Tight Security', The Hindu, 2 February 2013. 24
halls. This might explain why the government in Tamil Nadu continued to push for a ban. When faced with criticism for banning the film, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa responded that the ban was imposed purely because of the risk of violent outbreaks.89 In the end, the government managed to come out as a “successful mediator” towards a mutually beneficial solution, where the film was released with the cuts as requested from the protestors.
The protestors in Tamil Nadu played a significant role from the very beginning; from demanding a special screening, to having an officially arranged meeting with the directors and government representatives, to finally resulting in several cuts being made to the film. News reports regarding the controversy are written almost exclusively about the events in Tamil Nadu, suggesting that the protests in Uttar Pradesh went on nearly un-noticed. Although the protests in Uttar Pradesh did not receive the same attention in the media, the government took action to ensure that public order would be maintained even if protests would occur. The limited information on the protests in Uttar Pradesh, however, make it difficult to establish the impact of these protests. Government officials actually seemed to pay more attention to the events that unfolded in Tamil Nadu, than they did to the demands of Muslim groups in their own state. This suggests that the protestors in Uttar Pradesh might not have been highly mobilized, and by not adopting disruptive strategies, they did not pose a significant threat to law and order to motivate a ban on the film.
According to previous research, protests can be either facilitated or constrained by several factors. Some of these can be controlled by the movement itself, such as mobilization, framing of demands and the adoption of disruptive tactics. Other factors concern the political environment in which the movement operates and the amount of social support, which can be partially influenced by the movement. Again, the protestors in Tamil Nadu seemed to be very organized, even from the beginning. They also operated in a favorable political environment, in which they had access to political decision-makers. The use of disruptive tactics such as threats and violence probably contributed to their influence. Consequently, while we cannot make any causal claims, it is highly likely that the restrictions in Tamil Nadu would not have occurred in the absence of protests. It would seem incomprehensive for a government to impose a ban with reference to the public order if there are no signs of threat. However, the act of protesting does not in any way guarantee government restriction, as we have seen both from the quantitative results and the case study. Protests can be successful, but the success seems to depend on both movement-controlled factors and external support.
6. Conclusions This thesis has tried to highlight the role of citizens in regulating free speech in India. Taking note of research on social movements, Indian censorship and group rights, it has provided a deeper understanding of the circumstances surrounding demands for free-speech restrictions.
89 The Times of India, ''Vishwaroopam' Row: There Is No Political Motive: Jayalalithaa', The Times of India, 2 February 2013. 25
The central question to this thesis has been to establish to what extent protest groups are influential when it comes to restrictions on freedom of expression. A quantitative approach was adopted where data on protests between 2010 and 2015 was collected through information from news reports. This method enabled an analysis of a large amount of data based on a record of 114 protests from the past five years. The results were subsequently categorized and analyzed according to whether or not the protests resulted in restrictions of free speech. The author has demonstrated that protest groups’ demands for censorship coincide with a restriction on free speech in 29% of the observed cases. While correlation does not necessarily mean causality, it is likely that the strategy of using protests to demand government action is at least a contributing factor when it comes to restrictions on free speech. This has been demonstrated by the case study of protests regarding the film Vishwaroopam, which met with different responses in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The case study was included to illustrate an example of citizens’ demands and government response in order to understand the dynamics behind protest influence, which was the other purpose of this project. The circumstances surrounding Vishwaroopam suggested that government response was at least partially influenced by the protest groups. Important characteristics such as mobilization, a favorable political context and the adoption of disruptive strategies could explain why the protests in Tamil Nadu were successful in meeting their demands, while the other group seemed to lack these components.
In a human rights context, freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights, without which we cannot hold governments accountable, or demand the protection of other rights. Much of the attention regarding the promotion of free speech naturally focuses on the duties of the state, for example the importance of a free press or that dissenting opinions should be allowed to be debated in public. And while states should prevent from violating individual rights, they are also obliged to protect from violations by other actors, and to promote their realization. This often means to strike a balance between rights, for example between individual and group rights. This thesis has presented previous research regarding the particular role of group rights in the Indian context. Group rights have historically been significant for the preservation of communal harmony, and were perceived as more important than individual rights during the drafting of the Constitution. Controversial books or films that were perceived as offensive were also considered a possible threat to peaceful relations between communities. Consequently, individual rights could be granted as far as they did not constitute a threat to this balance of group rights. The “right to censor” has come to play an important role when it comes to free speech regulation, not least by the practice of advisory panels, which allows some citizens to object to the content of films prior to their release.
Based on the findings of this project, the author argues that the role of citizens as censors should not be ignored. Instead, more attention should be directed towards a deeper understanding of this seemingly informal arrangement that nonetheless influences individual rights and freedoms. Future research on protests and censorship in India would therefore benefit from including research on additional variables; for example political context, the use of violence or other disruptive strategies, and social support. Furthermore, it would be equally useful to conduct more comparative studies that also pay attention to “failed” attempts to restrict free speech.
26
“Such is the climate of intolerance in today’s India that it is almost impossible to write a book or make a movie without having to cope with a mob of protestors who claim that you have offended their caste/community/religion/region/city/grandparents/favourite pets.”90 This is a quote from a column in Hindustan Times, written by the Indian journalist and writer Vir Sanghvi. Albeit satirical, it highlights how the practice of citizen censorship might actually manifest and affect free speech. For it is not only religion which needs to be protected - but something even more important. It concerns the preservation of groups’ cultural values, public morality or the decency of women, even the protection of children - all in the public interest. In other words, the possible consequences of free speech is that it risks hurting the most vulnerable individuals in society. If these are the implications, giving up a little piece of individual freedom seems like a small price to pay.
Freedom of speech has its limits, and sometimes rightfully so. Most people accept at least some limitations to freedom of expression, and many would probably argue that we should refrain from offending others by deliberately insulting their beliefs just for the sake of provocation. Freedom of expression, however, protects even objectionable views that many would prefer to prohibit. Ultimately, we might never reach an agreement regarding how to reconcile free speech and other rights. In fact, the debate on intolerance in India seems to be constrained by an inability to separate reasonable criticism from hurtful and offensive speech. This debate is likely to continue, and so are the protests – for such is the nature of free speech, that it belongs even to its critics.
90 Vir Sanghvi, 'Counterpoint: Age of Intolerance', Hindustan Times (updated Apr. 02 2008)
7. References
Amenta, Edwin, et al. (2010), 'The political consequences of social movements', Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 287-307. Amnesty International 'India: Crackdown on Freedom of Expression Must End', (updated 2016-02-17)
28
Indo-Asian News Service (23 January 2013), 'Tamil nadu bans 'Vishwaroopam' for 15 days', Indo-Asian News Service. Jaffrelot, Christophe (1996), The Hindu nationalist movement and Indian politics: 1925 to the 1990s (London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. ). Khan, Mohammad Ismail (30 January 2013), 'Vishwaroopam ban: Do Muslim groups have strong case?', Kashmir Monitor. Lakshmana, Zia Haq and KV (1 February 2013), 'Centre, Tamil Nadu govt spar over film ban rights', Hindustan Times. MacMillan (2002), 'English Dictionary for Advanced Learners', (Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc). Mail Today Bureau in Chennai (4 January 2013), 'Hassan's film faces Muslim backlash', Mail Today. Malhotra, Jyoti (23 March 2015), 'Ban de Matram', India Today. Nambath, Suresh (4 February 2013), 'Demonising the minority', The Hindu. Nathoo, Leila 'Kanhaiya Kumar: Arrest of student leader in Delhi sparks campus protests across India', The Independent
29
Vajpeyi, Ashok 'Why we returned Sahitya Akademi awards', The Hindu (updated 2015-10- 10)
30
Appendix A: Charts
Protest data 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total number of protests 11 12 19 15 19 38 Successful/partly successful 435768 Not successful 581151228 N/A 213312
Total number of protests Successful/partly successful Not successful N/A
Protesting groups 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Number of protests
Religious groups Caste/tribal/ethnic Women's groups Other
Religious groups
7,8%
18,8%
57,8% 15,6%
Hindu Muslim Sikh Christian
31
Appendix B: Protest sources All sources have been accessed from the database Factiva; https://global.factiva.com.
The Times of India ”Saffron outfits disrupt ’PK’ shows, again”, The Times of India, 1 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”In several places, shows cancelled after protests”, The Times of India, 1 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Saffron siege in city over Salman’s ’Bajrangi Bhaijan’”, The Times of India, 11 July 2015. (Accessed 2016-04- 28) ”After clash, many cinemas stop showing MSG-2”, The Times of India, 22 September 2015. (Accessed 2016-04- 28) Vinobha, K T., ”Hindu outfits seek ban on Dr Zakir Naik in Mangaluru”, The Times of India, 13 December 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-28) ”Ban ’anti-Hindu’ play, say DUSU”, The Times of India, 22 March 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-28) Mishra, I., ”Won’t allow Aamir’s films to run in Agra: Hindu Jagran Manch”, The Times of India, 26 November 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”J’khand bans MSG-2 after protest threat by tribals”, The Times of India Delhi Edition, 20 September 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”CASTE ROW Tamil writers, scholars protest government ban on two books”, The Times of India Chennai Edition, 30 August 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”ABVP stops screening of film on riots”, The Times of India, 3 August 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Bhatia, I., ”BSP leaders protest against ’Guddu Rangeela’”, The Times of India, 7 July 2015. (Accessed 2016-04- 12) Rajendran, G., ”Caste group calls for bandh on March 3 to protest against author”, The Times of India, 2 March 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Saxena, S., ”MSG screenings banned in three districts following protests”, The Times of India, 14 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Mathai, K. and Mani, C D S., ”Support increases for Tamil author, book sales also up”, The Times of India Chennai Edition, 15 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Women burn RGV’s effigy”, The Times of India, 7 October 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-27) ”KISS OF LOVE It’s uncivilized: women’s panel”, The Times of India Bangalore Edition, 24 November 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-27) ”Stop KOL, it’s uncivilized, mad behaviour: women’s panel”, The Times of India, 25 November 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-27) ”Hindu outfit demands ban on the play Ali J”, The Times of India, 30 January 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-27) Boruah, M., ”Ali J: Staged in January; banned in March”, The Times of India, 15 March 2014. (Accessed 2016- 04-27) ”PK provokes Bajrang Dal ire”, The Times of India, 31 December 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”Right-wingers force theatre to pull out ’PK’”, The Times of India Mumbai Edition, 30 December 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) Sharma, A. ”Protest planned against film on Indira’s killers”, The Times of India, 20 August 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”BHU students burn Ramdev’s effigy”, The Times of India, 30 April 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”Youth congress, Dalit outfis protest against Ramdev”, The Times of India, 28 April 2014. (Accessed 2016-04- 16) ”Good response to ’Vishwaroopam’ in UP”, The Times of India, 3 February 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) ”’Thuppakki’ gets mixed verdict”, The Times of India Bangalore Edition, 29 January 2013. (Accessed 2016-04- 26) ”Protest against Taslima script”, The Times of India Kolkata Edition, 14 December 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) ”Protests by saffron brigade against Youngren’s event reach a crescendo”, The Times of India, 28 October 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18)
32
”John Abraham’s ’Madras Café’ faces protests in Chennai”, The Times of India, 8 August 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) Rai, P., ”Rajputs protest against Jodha-Akbar TV serial, block highway”, The Times of India, 16 July 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) ”Protest over derogatory scene against Valmiki in Shootout at Wadala”, The Times of India, 14 May 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) Jha, B K., ”Dalit outfit protest against movie ’Shootout at Wadala’ in Indore”, The Times of India, 13 May 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) Kamal, N., ”Shootout at Wadala banned in Punjab, people protest outside Sonu Sood’s residence”, The Times of India, 7 May 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) ”Lawyers burn Bhansali’s effigy”, The Times of India, 14 November 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Sikh bodies want serial name ’Gurbani’ changed”, The Times of India, 20 March 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Protests over ’Mirchi’”, The Times of India Hyderabad Edition, 10 February 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”After Vishwaroopam, now Mani Ratnam’s film in trouble”, The Times of India Ahmedabad Edition, 6 February 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Kamal, N., ”Presentation of womanhood as commodity giving way to rapid increase in harassment, rape: Women’s organization”, The Times of India, 4 January 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Film fury rages in Ahmedabad, mobs attack cops”, The Times of India Ahmedabad Edition, 4 October 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-19) ”Anti-Islam film: Attack on Chennai US mission”, The Times of India Kolkata Edition, 15 September 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-19) Kamal, N., ”Effigies of 5 ’vulgar’ singer burnt”, The Times of India, 21 February 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Protest”, The Hindu, 23 February 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Sharma, A., ”Osama film crew touches Muslims’ raw nerve”, The Times of India, 5 March 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Pinto, S., ”Saffron units to move court against unaltered version of Katariveera”, The Times of India, 24 May 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Jha, S K., ”’Banjara’ community lay siege to Censor Board office”, The Times of India, 25 May 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Ojha S., ”’Gangs of Wasseypur’ may be in soup”, The Times of India, 28 May 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”AISPLB seeks ban on movie”, The Times of India Lucknow Edition, 19 July 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Despite protests to ban Jism 2, cinemas run full houses”, The Times of India, 5 August 2012. (Accessed 2016- 04-26) ”Jism-2: Activists demand ban on movie”, The Times of India, 4 August 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Bandh against anti-Islam film”, The Times of India, 2 October 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Pandit M S., ”Anti-Islam film: Cops detain separatists”, The Times of India Ahmedabad Edition, 15 September 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Pinto, S., ”Catholics demand deletion of objectionable scenes in ’Kamaal..” The Times of India, 27 September 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Scene deleted from film”, The Times of India Mumbai Edition, 28 September 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Singh, I P., ”OMG screening not held in Jalandhar due to protest”, The Times of India, 29 September 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Telangana Rashtra Samithi goes to police against Pawan film”, The Times of India, 24 October 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Prakash Jha meets group to douse fire”, The Times of India, 9 August 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Protest against ’Dirty Picture’ screening”, The Times of India Hyderabad Edition, 7 December 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-22) Prakash, A., ”Dam999 may face a ban in Tamil Nadu”, The Times of India, 24 November 2011. (Accessed 2016- 04-22) Satyanarayana, R., ”Dam999 director to move court against ban by Tamil Nadu”, The Times of India, 26 November 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-22) D’Mello, A., ”Film poster offensive: Christian groups”, The Times of India, 21 November 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-22) 33
”68 policemen posted at KA during staging of ’Sons of Babur’”, The Times of India, 13 May 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Mahapatra, D. and Dubey, B., ”’Aarakshan’ opens under cop cover, Jha moves SC”, The Times of India Lucknow Edition, 13 August 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Wajihuddin, M. and Dubey, B., ”Row over movie title”, The Times of India, 9 October 2011. (Accessed 2016- 04-26) Nigam, A., ”Political interference in Bollywood!”, The Times of India, 14 December 2010. (Accessed 2016-04- 22) ”32 Sena men detained”, The Times of India, 14 February 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Rayalaseema tense ahead of Rakta Charitra release”, The Times of India, 22 October 2010. (Accessed 2016-04- 22) ”Jayaram ’sorry’ for remark, his house in city attacked”, The Times of India, 7 February 2010. (Accessed 2016- 04-22) ”Islamic preacher Zakir Naik barred from entering M’luru”, The Times of India Bangalore Edition, 28 December 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Centre bars release of film on Indira’s killers”, The Times of India Kolkata Edition, 22 August 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-22) Dhawan, H., ”Censor Board to re-examine film glorifying Gen Vaidya’s killers”, The Times of India, 8 September 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-22) Chandrababu, D., ”Tamil Nadu theatres refuse to screen Madras Cafe”, The Times of India, 25 August 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Sikhs celebrate after TV channel renames soap”, The Times of India, 21 March 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Punjab to ban vulgar songs”, The Times of India, 3 March 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”High Court stays ’Sorry Teacher’”, The Times of India Hyderabad Edition, 4 September 2012. (Accessed 2016- 04-22)
Hindustan Times ”’PK’ tax-free: HJM calls CM ’anti-Hindu’”, Hindustan Times Lucknow, 1 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04- 12) Srivastava, A., ”Sikhs won’t allow ’MSG’ screening”, Hindustan Times Lucknow, 14 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-28) ”Sikh students start online petition in support of ’Ban Sikh Jokes’”, Hindustan Times, 19 November 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-28) ”Bajirao Mastani shows cancelled in Pune after BJP protests”, Hindustan Times, 18 December 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Dilwale, Bajirao shows cancelled: 6 films that faced violent protests”, Hindustan Times, 18 December 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Mansuri, M., ”Despite protests, controversial play to be staged at NCPA”, Hindustan Times, 4 October 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Mansuri, M., ”Despite protests, Agnes of God to be staged in Maha on Monday”, Hindustan Times, 4 October 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Life hit in Punjab as MSG-2 fans protest ’unoffical ban’”, Hindustan Times Punjab, 19 September 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Sharma, S., ”Dera Sacha Sauda followers resort to rail, road blockade”, Hindustan Times Punjab, 20 September 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Dey, S. and Kaiser, E., ”MSG 2 refers to tribals as ’shaitan’, banned in Chhattisgarh”, Hindustan Times, 19 September 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Kaur, U., ”Ruling SAD joins protest against ’Nanak Shah Fakir’ Movie”, Hindustan Times, 17 April 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Dal Khalsa writes to Rajnath, wants film banned across India”, Hindustan Times, 17 April 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12)
34
”Punjab govt suspends ’Nanak Shah Fakir’ screening for 2 months”, Hindustan Times, 16 April 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Punjab government mulls banning movie ’Nanak Shah Fakir’”, Hindustan Times, 11 April 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”MSG releases amid tight security, 28 protestors held”, Hindustan Times, 14 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04- 12) ”’MSG’ releases over 4,000 screens across India, protests in Haryana”, Hindustan Times, 13 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Protests against MSG in Delhi at 5 places, screenings halted over security concerns”, Hindustan Times, 13 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Protests against MSG in Delhi at five places”, Hindustan Times, 13 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”’MSG’ release: Tension in Sirsa; Section 144 imposed at some places”, Hindustan Times, 19 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”INLD protests against Dera Sacha Sauda head Ram Rahim’s movie ’MSG’ in Karnal”, Hindustan Times, 19 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Dera Sacha Sauda chief’s film unleashes chaos before release”, Hindustan Times, 17 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Film row: SAD holds protest in Delhi”, Hindustan Times, 16 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Bhaskaran, G., ”Demand for ban on release of Vadivelu’s Tenaliraman”, Hindustan Times, 13 April 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-27) Bhaskaran, G., ”Tamil film Puli Paarvai set to run into a storm”, Hindustan Times, 17 August 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-27) ”Bajrang Dal protests against ’PK’ in Bhopal”, Hindustan Times, 30 December 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”HYV activists demand ban on PK”, Hindustan Times, 28 December 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) Das, A., ”Protests at trailer launch of John’s next”, Hindustan Times, 8 August 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) ”Anti-Islam film protest chokes city”, Hindustan Times, 28 September 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-19) Marwah, N K., ”Student Of the Year: Radha runs into trouble”, Hindustan Times, 23 October 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Azaan title offensive, says Samajwadi Party”, Hindustan Times, 12 October 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”No curtain calls in Mumbai”, Hindustan Times, 13 February 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Doctors protest against Ash’s smoking scene”, Hindustan Times, 20 November 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Sena, MNS unite against Bigg Boss”, Hindustan Times, 5 October 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Govt set to ban Bigg Boss shoot?”, Hindustan Times, 9 October 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”No ticket for evening shows”, Hindustan Times, 19 November 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Devgn, cast of Singham apologise to Kannadigas”, Hindustan Times, 30 July 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22)
The Hindu ”Bomb hurled at multiplex showing ’Bahubali’”, The Hindu, 23 July 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-28) ”Historical facts twisted in ’Bajirao Mastani’: samiti”, The Hindu, 14 December 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-28) ”Women stage protest against song”, The Hindu, 15 December 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Protest against Uthama Villain”, The Hindu, 7 April 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Ananth, M K., ”Protest against obscene advertisements”, The Hindu, 7 April 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Protests continue against writer” The Hindu, 4 March 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Amid protests, MSG hits the screens”, The Hindu, 14 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Protesters halt screening of MSG”, The Hindu, 14 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Bhatnagar, G V., ”Amid protests, MSG hits the screens in Haryana”, The Hindu, 14 February 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Bhatnagar, G V., ”Sikh groups protest clearance for Dera film”, The Hindu, 17 January 2015. (Accessed 2016- 04-12) Bhatnagar, G V., ”Protests break out”, The Hindu, 17 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Naig, ”Transgender community turns up the heat on I”, The Hindu, 23 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12)
35
”Transgenders stage protest against ’I’”, The Hindu, 21 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) Yamunan, S., ”We don’t have time for such protests: RSS”, The Hindu, 13 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04- 12) Kolappan, B., ”Writers and academics support Perumal Murugan”, The Hindu, 10 January 2015. (Accessed 2016-04-12) ”Arundhati Roy’s city visit kicks up row”, The Hindu, 7 March 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-27) ”Ban on ’PK’ sought”, The Hindu, 31 December 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”Protest outside DD office”, The Hindu, 5 October 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”Naiks stage protest against book on Valmiki”, The Hindu, 13 May 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”Bandh observed in Belgaum in protest of Ramdev’s remarks”, The Hindu, 30 April 2014. (Accessed 2016-04- 16) ”Boxers protest against ’Maan Karate’”, The Hindu, 27 April 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”Protesters lathicharged”, The Hindu, 29 March 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) Tankha, M., ”Right-wing protesters strike”, The Hindu, 16 February 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”BJP protest at Vibgyor film festival”, The Hindu, 15 February 2014. (Accessed 2016-04-16) ”Activists up in arms against ’sexist’ Punjabi singers”, The Hindu, 4 January 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Rashid, O., ”Right-wing groups against Christian show”, The Hindu, 24 October 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-18) ”Telecast of TV serial with Taslima’s script deferred”, The Hindu, 20 December 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Basheer, K P M., ”Ban on Saint Dracula 3D sought”, The Hindu, 22 March 2013. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Khajane, M., ”Hindutva outfits stop screening of Upendra film”, The Hindu, 13 May 2012. (Accessed 2016-04- 26) ”Protest against screening of movie”, The Hindu, 6 October 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Ban sought on Telugu film ’Sorry Teacher’”, The Hindu, 28 August 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Protest against film”, The Hindu, 27 September 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Brahmana Sabha seeks ban on controversial film”, The Hindu, 28 October 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Another film lands in controversy”, The Hindu, 12 November 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”MRPS support from Brahamana Sangham”, The Hindu, 4 November 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Manchu Vishnu appears in court”, The Hindu, 23 November 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Brahmins to step up stir against film”, The Hindu, 15 November 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Protest march taken out against Denikaina Ready”, The Hindu, 12 November 2012. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Ban sought on film screening”, The Hindu, 3 December 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Lawyers seek change in ’Bezawada Rowdeelu’ title”, The Hindu, 29 July 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Citizens against naming film ’Bezawada Rowdylu’”, The Hindu, 31 May 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Muslim body finds scenes in Gujarati film offensive”, The Times of India, 1 June 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Complaint filed against film Delhi Belly”, The Hindu, 12 July 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) Kumar, S V., ”BSP cadres force cancellation of film shows”, The Hindu, 17 August 2011. (Accessed 2016-04- 26) ”BSP against screening of Aarakshan”, The Hindu, 14 August 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”JUH protests against Hindi film”, The Hindu, 28 October 2011. (Accessed 2016-04-26) ”Court ruling sparks Sena protests”, The Hindu, 12 July 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Maharashtra to curb scurrilous writing”, The Hindu, 13 July 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Muslims protest against book by civil rights activist”, The Hindu, 26 February 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) Bhatnagar, G V., ”Congress protests against RSS leader’s remarks”, The Hindu, 13 November 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22) ”Ban on ’Draupadi’ sought”, The Hindu, 21 January 2010. (Accessed 2016-04-22)
36
Sept. Sept. 2015 Jharkhand Sept. 2015 Uttarakhand Opponents of RamGurmeet Rahim Singh Nov. 2015 Uttar Pradesh Nov. 2015 Delhi New Dec. Dec. 2015 Tamil Nadu Dec. 2015 Uttarakhand Dec. 2015 Pradesh Madhya Dec. 2015 Karnataka Dec. 2015 Karnataka Dec. 2015 Maharashtra Oct. 2015 Maharashtra Date Place Agent(s) Controversy Goal Argument Response Success CHRISTIAN GROUPS WOMEN'S GROUPS TRIBAL GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS SIKH GROUPS Actors Aamir Khan & Shah Film: Bajirao Mastani Film: Bajirao Mastani preacher Zakir Naik Play: Play: Agnes of God Ban obscenity, Showcase mocks caste Not restricted Speech Speech by Islamic Film: MSG2 - The Film: MSG2 - The Film: DilwaleFilm: Dilwale N/A N/A "Beep song""Beep Ban song and artists.arrest messenger messenger Rukh Khan Sikh Sikh jokes Ban Appendix C: Protest data Protest C: Appendix Statewide ban (in UP) on Statewide "distortion of history" against against BoardCensor Ban Ban and legal action historically twisted Ban Ban or removal of Ban Ban or removal of Not grant permit actors' actors' movies. Stop Stop screening N/A Not restricted portions Hurt feelings of Sikhs and shows them in a Distorts history, portrays Maratha general Protesting Protesting against actor for comments on Protesting against actor for comments on Racist and undermines community. Hurt in poor light, offended charactersthat destabilize destabilize communal harmony in the Tribals are portrayed sub-humans.as Protesting against actors' remarks on Hindutva and the nation, speech will poor light, hurt religious sentiments mocking Hindu gods, against speaks Indecent representation of women, Has madeHas derogatory speeches by intolerance, to "akin treason". Film twisted historical facts Not restricted denigration of women. intolerance in India. intolerance in India. were seen seen dancing.were sentiments. region Delhi Delhi CM signedKejriwal petition Artist apprehended for obscene any publicany meeting or function Mangaluru city and adressing Speaker barred fromSpeaker visiting between Dec. 31 -between 6.Jan in support of ban and and sexist lyrics Banned Banned by CM Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted PARTLY PARTLY YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Level (state or (state Level Mangaluru city INC national) State BJP Ruling party Other Samajwadi Party Samajwadi AIADMK AAP INC INC INC BJP BJP BJP March 2015 Tamil Nadu March 2015 Delhi New Sept. Sept. 2015 Chhattisgarh Aug. 2015 Delhi New Feb. Feb. 2015 Haryana Feb. 2015 Uttar Pradesh Apr. 2015 Tamil Nadu Apr. 2015 Tamil Nadu Apr. 2015 Chandigarh Apr. 2015 Punjab July 2015 Pradesh Uttar July 2015 Tamil Nadu July 2015 Madhya Pradesh WOMEN'S GROUPS TRIBAL GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS CASTE CASTE GROUPS DALIT GROUPS DALIT GROUPS SIKH GROUPS SIKH GROUPS SIKH GROUPS SIKH GROUPS Book: Balachandran Enra Obscene advertisements Muzaffarnagar Abhi Baki Film: Bajrangi Bhaijaan Ban Film: Shah FakirNanak BanFilm: Shah FakirNanak Country-wide ban Represented guru in human form. on local tv-channels at Film: Guddu Rangeela Ban community Dalit shown in bad light. Not restricted Play: Play: Welcome to the Peyarum Peyarum Enakkundu Film: VillainUthama Ban Film: MSG2 - The Film: MSG - The Film: MSG - The Film: Bahubali Ban Documentary: messenger messenger messenger Machine night Hai Ban Ban and author arrest Ban Ban and legal action against against film. N/A BanBan Hurts religious sentiments. Hurts the community restricted Not Ban Ban Not restricted N/A N/A Anti-national, hurting sentiments, holding Objectionable title, played with religious message to message the society, promote wrong which is prohibited by the sikh religion. Remarks against Dalits shows them in a RSS communityRSS and Jat responsible for Affects religious sentiments of Hindu Human characterization of sikh guru, Play isPlay anti-Hindu and gives a wrong Derogatory remarks remarks Konguagainst Derogatory Deeply hurtingDeeply dignity of adivasis, things about Hindu community offended tribals, demeaning to community, insulting tribals. Hurts religious sentiments. Vellalar Vellalar community. sentiments poor light people. riots. Screening suspended for two Screening suspended for two Banned Banned by CM Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted months. months. N/A YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Union Territory BJP State Shiromani Akali Dal State BJP Samajwadi Party Samajwadi Party Samajwadi AIADMK AIADMK AIADMK AIADMK AAP AAP BJP BJP released clearanceafter released by FCAT Film later was withdrawn Film later was withdrawn Not cleared by CBFC, but worldwide by producer. worldwide by producer. (higher (higher tribunal) Feb. Feb. 2015 Uttarakhand Feb. 2015 Chandigarh Feb. 2015 Delhi New S Jan. Jan. 2015 Hyderabad Jan. 2015 Assam Jan. 2015 Karnataka Jan. 2015 Delhi New Jan. 2015 Uttar Pradesh Jan. 2015 Tamil Nadu Jan. 2015 Tamil Nadu Jan. 2015 Punjab Groups of LGBT rights Jan. 2015 Delhi New Jan. 2015 Film: I Haryana S S HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS SIKH GROUPS SIKH GROUPS SIKH GROUPS IKH GROUPS IKH GROUPS IKH GROUPS Book: Madhorubhagan Ban Film: MSG - The Film: MSG - The Film: MSG - The Film: MSG - The Film: MSG - The Film: MSG - The messenger messenger messenger messenger messenger messenger Film: PKFilm: PK BanFilm: PK BanFilm: PK Hurts religious sentiments. BanFilm: PK Hurts religious sentiments. Not restricted Hurts religious sentiments. Not restricted Not restricted Ban, deletion of insulting Censorship of insulting Ban Ban and register case against against Aamir Khan scenes scenes BanBan Hurts religious sentiments.Ban Banned governmentby state Distorts scriptures.Ban Hurts religious sentiments. Not restricted Ban Hurts religious sentiments. restricted Not Ban Hurts religious sentiments. restricted Not restricted Not N/A Not restricted Portrays membersPortrays of certain communities Insults transgender community N/A Hurts religious sentiments.Hurts religious sentiments. restricted Not restricted Not in a mannerwrong Not restricted N/A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO State Shiromani Akali Dal N/A rule)(President's N/A rule)(President's Telugu Party Desam Shiromani Akali Dal Samajwadi Party Samajwadi AIADMK AIADMK AAP INC INC INC BJP released clearanceafter released by FCAT clearanceafter released by FCAT clearanceafter released by FCAT clearanceafter released by FCAT clearanceafter released by FCAT clearanceafter released by FCAT Samajwadi Party exempted the Party exempted Samajwadi film from entertainment tax Not cleared by CBFC, but Not cleared by CBFC, but Not cleared by CBFC, but Not cleared by CBFC, but Not cleared by CBFC, but Not cleared by CBFC, but CM Akhilesh ofYadav (higher (higher tribunal) (higher tribunal) (higher tribunal) (higher tribunal) (higher tribunal) (higher tribunal) April 2014 Karnataka April 2014 Uttar Pradesh Nov. 2014 Karnataka Aug. 2014 Tamil NaduAug. 2014 Punjab groups Student Youth Punjab Congress Film: Puli Paarvai Film: Kaum de Heere Ban Ban May 2014May Karnataka Dec. 2014 Pradesh Madhya Dec. 2014 Maharashtra Dec. 2014 Gujarat Dec. 2014 Uttar Pradesh Dec. 2014 Hyderabad Oct. 2014 Andhra Pradesh Jan. Jan. 2015 Odisha 38 Federation ofFederation India Democratic Youth(SFI), All-India Democratic Association Women's (AIDWA), (AIDWA), CPM wing,Women's Students' Federation ofFederation India (DYFI) WOMEN'S GROUPS ETHNIC GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS DALIT GROUPS DALIT GROUPS Book on Maharishi Valmiki Ban Book dishonours Maharishi N/A Protest: Protest: Kiss of Love grant Not permit Statement by Baba Statement by Baba Statement Film: Savitri Ban Ramdev Ramdev Film: PKFilm: PK N/AFilm: PKFilm: PK Ban.Film: PK N/A Hurts religious sentiments. Ban Not restricted Film: PK restricted Not Hurts religious sentiments. Ban Not restricted Hurts religious sentiments. Not restricted Appropriate action against Demand immediateDemand arrest Protest as deterrence toProtest a Ban Ban and register case against against Aamir Khan film makers of guru guru Poster Poster is obscene and portrayal of teacher- Eulogizes PM's killers, to attempt revive Uncivilized, uncultured, vulgar publicity Film promotes and interests Sri Lankan Hurts sentiments of communityDalit registered by Case police Hurts sentiments of communityDalit registered by Case police student relationship is in bad taste Unfair criticism of Hindu faith. Not restricted Hurts religious sentiments. restricted Not celebrates childcelebrates soldiers detrimental to culture terrorism in Punjab Police did not grant permit Not restricted Not restricted Banned PARTLY = 2 NO NO 28,= YES 6, = N/A 2 = PARTLY PARTLY N/A YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Nationwide Shiromani Akali Dal National: BJP Telugu Party Desam Telugu Party Desam Samajwadi Party Samajwadi Party Samajwadi Biju Janata Dal Biju Janata AIADMK INC INC INC BJP BJP BJP Samajwadi Party exempted the Party exempted Samajwadi film from entertainment tax CM Akhilesh ofYadav March 2014 Puducherry March 2014 Andhra Pradesh April 2014 Tamil Nadu April 2014 Tamil Nadu Boxers and boxing trainers Film: Maan Karate Nov. 2013 Uttar Pradesh Groups of lawyers Film: Ram Leela Stop screening Depicts Hindu gods and goddesses badly Aug. 2013 Tamil Nadu Aug. 2013 Bengal West May 2013May Madhya Pradesh Dec. 2013 Bengal West Feb. Feb. 2014 Kerala Feb. 2014 Delhi New activists BJP Film: Ocean of Tears N/A Demeaning to the Indian Army restricted Not Oct. 2013 Pradesh Uttar Jan. Jan. 2014 Karnataka July 2013 Haryana 19 MUSLIM GROUPS ETHNIC GROUPS ETHNIC GROUPS ETHNIC GROUPS ETHNIC GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS CASTE CASTE GROUPS DALIT GROUPS DALIT GROUPS (Christian prayer meeting) Film: Shootout Wadalaat Deletion of scene words against Derogatory Valmiki Not restricted TV serial: AkbarJodha Ban Book: The Hindus, an Book: Annihilation of TV serial: Dusahobas Stop screening Hurts sentiments of the community deferred Telecast by TV channel Alternative History Friendship festival Film: Madras CaféFilm: Madras Café N/A N/A Depicts LTTE in a bad light Depicts LTTE in a bad light Not restricted Film: Tenaliraman Ban Film: Inam Ban Wrongly portrayed Eelam inwar Sri Lanka Not restricted Play: Play: Ali J Ban Anti-national Caste Film should not be screened screened on TV Ban Ban on event N/A Book vilifies Hindu gods and godesses Not restricted Ban Conspiracy to promote conversion and Film disrespects 16th century emperor Introduction by Arundhati Roy dilutes Distorts historical facts and portrays Ambedkar's writing and might be Made Made fun of boxing, wrong gave misinterpreted due to needless Rajput community in bad light. impression about the game comparisons to Gandhi spread spread superstition Krishnadevaraya Banned Banned in UP. Name changed to Goliyon -ki Ram Leela Ras Leela Show was was held Show in butJanuary Not restricted, but cinemas stopped by police in March refused to screen film after courtafter order Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted N/A PARTLY = 4 NO NO 12,= YES 2, = N/A 1 = PARTLY PARTLY PARTLY PARTLY N/A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO State Party Samajwadi All India N.R. Congress N/A rule)(President's N/A rule)(President's All India Trinamool All India Trinamool Samajwadi Party Samajwadi Congress Congress AIADMK AIADMK AIADMK INC INC INC BJP Publisher withdrew book after controversy March 2013 Punjab March 2013 Kerala Nov. 2012 Andhra PradeshNov. 2012 Andhra Pradesh Student unions Film: Bus Stop May 2013May Punjab Bhartiya Valmiki SamajDharam Film: Shootout at Wadala Ban Offending for language Valmiki Banned by government state Feb. Feb. 2013 Tamil Nadu Feb. 2013 Uttar Pradesh Feb. 2013 Tamil Nadu Feb. 2013 Hyderabad Oct. 2012Oct. 2012 Goa Andhra PradeshOct. 2012 Federation of Student India (SFI) HyderabadOct. 2012 Film: Sorry Teacher Andhra Pradesh Rashtra Samiti Telangana Ban Film contains obscenity Not restricted Jan. Jan. 2013 Punjab 15 CHRISTIAN GROUPS CHRISTIAN GROUPS WOMEN'S GROUPS MUSLIM GROUPS MUSLIM GROUPS EHTNIC GROUPS HINDU GROUPS CASTE CASTE GROUPS CASTE GROUPS SIKH GROUPS Film: ofStudent the Year Ban Insults Hindu sentiments Not restricted Film: Cameraman Ganga Film: Ganga Cameraman Film: ReadyDenikaina Ban Film: DraculaSaint 3D Ban Offends religious sentiments of Christians Not restricted Songs by Honey Singh Ban on oftelecast songs N/A Film: VishwaroopamFilm: Vishwaroopam Ban Removal of scenes Hurts religious sentiments. Hurts religious sentiments. restricted Not Banned Film: A Woman in TV serial: Gurbani Ban or changename Hurts Sikhs' religious sentiments Tho Rambabu Brahminism Film: Mirchi Film: Kadal Removal of scenes Hurts sentiments of Christian community N/A Removal Removal of word "kasayi" Removal Removal of objectionable scenes in film Ban Ban Hurts sentiments of Brahmin community, leaders inleaders bad light, promotes animosity shows Hindu traditions in a bad light Film has biased a outlook towards a Film portrays people Telangana and particular sect and caste between regions. between N/A N/A N/A N/A removal of objectionable scenes songs containing obscene lyrics Punjab governmentPunjab told to be TV channel changed name to AP High Court judge ordered working on a policy banning Bani-Ishq da Kalma Not restricted N/A PARTLY = 2 YES = 5, NO NO = 5, N/A 3 = PARTLY N/A N/A N/A N/A YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO State Shiromani Akali Dal State AIADMK State Shiromani Akali Dal Shiromani Akali Dal Samajwadi Party Samajwadi AIADMK INC INC INC INC INC INC INC BJP Ban was lifted Ban was after agreement between parties. between Sept-Oct. 2012 March 2012 Chandigarh Sept. Sept. 2012 Maharashtra Sept. 2012 Punjab Aug. 2012 AssamAug. 2012 Uttar Pradesh Assam Unnayan Parishad (AUP)Aug. 2012 Allahabad Vikas Gaurav Manch Andhra Pradesh Film: Jism 2 Film: Jism 2 Ban Ban Moral grounds restricted Not May 2012May Karnataka 2012May Maharashtra 2012May Jharkhand Feb. Feb. 2012 Punjab Feb. 2012 Karnataka July 2012 Pradesh Uttar Nadu, Bengal West Gujarat, Gujarat, UP, J&K, Karnataka, TamilKarnataka, HINDU & MUSLIM GROUPS CHRISTIAN GROUPS WOMEN'S GROUPS WOMEN'S GROUPS MUSLIM GROUPS MUSLIM GROUPS ETHNIC GROUPS ETHNIC GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS Songs by Honey Singh and Film: ofGangs Wasseypur Ban Wrong depiction of facts Not restricted Film: ThirtyZero Dark (ZD Film: Oh My God (OMG) Film: Kamaal Dhamaal Film: Sorry Teacher Ban Film: Innocence of Film: Dandupalya Ban Portrays women in an insulting manner Not restricted Film: Katariveera Surasundarangi Film: Karbala Ban on making of film Hurts sentiments of Muslims N/A Film: Ajintha Diljit Singh Malamal Muslims 30) insult to religious leaders film, pass prohibitinglaw Ban Ban on all online links to Screening should not be Revoke ofRevoke film's censor Deletion ofDeletion scenes Hurts religious sentiments Ban Ban on shooting certificate allowed Ban Ban provokes Muslim community, Islamshows Hurts religious sentiments, mockery make of Islam, portrays Muslim on wrong lines, Ridicules Hindu deities and depicts them Hurts ofthe image women, contents are obscene and vulgar, on an attack Indian Gives Gives vulgar connotations to teacher- Denigrates womanhood Denigrates and portrays Hurts religious sentiments of Hindus Not restricted Film is blasphemous and anti-Islam, women women in poor light and as objects Film has done injustice to Banjara and and the Prophet in bad a light. in a deplorable manner student relationship generate hatred generate community culture Judge stayed release for stayed Judge release a couple songs containing obscene lyrics Not for available streaming on Punjab governmentPunjab said to be working on a policy banning CBFC deleted deleted CBFC objectionable Youtube in India Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted of weeks scenes PARTLY PARTLY N/A YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Nationwide State Shiromani Akali Dal Shiromani Akali Dal United Progressive Alliance coalition Samajwadi Party Samajwadi Party Samajwadi INC INC INC INC INC BJP BJP BJP June 2011June Gujarat Nov. 2011 Tamil NaduNov. 2011 Left-wing parties, MDMK, DMK, PMK Maharashtra Film: 999Dam Ban Aug. 2011 Tamil Nadu Aug. 2011 Karnataka May 2011May Goa 2011May Andhra Pradesh N/A Rowdeelu Film: Bezawada of Change title Dec. 2011 Andhra Pradesh Oct. 2011 Andhra Pradesh Oct. 2011 Maharashtra July 2011 Andhra Pradesh Advocates All-Party Vijayawada CommitteeJuly 2011 Film:Rowdeelu Bezawada Maharashtra Change of title Hurts sentiments Not restricted 12 19 CHRISTIAN GROUPS WOMEN'S GROUPS MUSLIM GROUPS MUSLIM GROUPS MUSLIM GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS DALIT GROUPS DALIT GROUPS Poster Poster of film Who's There Film: NiSarhad Mari Paar Film: The Dirty Picture Ban Obscenity Not restricted Play: Play: Sons of Babur Ban Film: Delhi Belly Ban Hurts religious sentiments. Not restricted Film: AarakshanFilm: Aarakshan Ban Ban Hurts Dalit sentiments Film is against reservations Not restricted Not restricted Film: AzaanFilm: Azaan Ban Change of title Radha Prevent postersPrevent of being exhibited Ban Depicts a wrong picture of city's public life Glorifies Mughal distortsera, history and Hurts sentiments of Muslim community, Hurt sentiments of Christian community N/A Film contains scenes and dialogues that contains anti-Islamic and vulgar scenes Film supports Kerala instead of Tamil Deliberate attempt to attempt hurtDeliberate Muslim go religiousagainst traditions and Nadu in dam controversy gives out wrong message emotions of minorities sentiments and and image Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Not restricted Banned NO NO 8, = YES = = 1, PARTLY = PARTLY = 3 2 2 N/A 1 = NO NO 11,= YES 2, = N/A 3 = PARTLY PARTLY N/A YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO State AIADMK AIADMK INC INC INC INC INC INC INC INC BJP BJP Producer changed name of film Producer changed name of film Punjab, Punjab, ban lifted a later at Punjab, ban lifted a later at Film banned in UP, AP and Film banned in UP, AP and to Bejawada to Bejawada stage stage Nov. 2010 Delhi New Nov. 2010 Maharashtra Local workers of Congress party Doctors' organizations Poster of film Guzaarish Removal of posters promotes Poster smoking N/A Dec. Dec. 2010 Maharashtra Feb. Feb. 2010 Andhra Pradesh Feb. 2010 Maharashtra Feb. 2010 Tamil Nadu Oct. 2010 Maharashtra Oct. 2010 Andhra Pradesh from Students All India FederationStudents' Film: Rakta Charitra Ban Film would whip up factional politics Not restricted Jan. Jan. 2010 Andhra Pradesh July 2010 Maharashtra Juy 2010Juy Karnataka 114 11 MUSLIM GROUPS EHTNIC GROUPS ETHNIC GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS HINDU GROUPS chief against Sonia Gandhi Remarks by actor Jayaram Book: Shivaji - The Hindu Book: Crescent over the World - Is Boona or the Reality Show: Bigg Boss Remarks by former RSS Film: My Name is Khan N/A Actor has challenged chief of Shiv Sena Not restricted Remarks by actor Shah King in Muslim India Novel: DraupadiSilent Holocaust Ban Film: Singham Rukh Khan defamation defamation proceedings Ban Ban on actor's films and Ban Ban of film My Name is Removal Removal of scenes and Ban Ban and action against initiation of criminal Ban Ban or removal of participants Ban Ban of RSS dialogues author Khan Ban Insults ruler Maratha Shivaji Derogatory remarks remarks Tamilagainst Derogatory women. N/A Depicting character from in Mahabharata Anti-national and anti-Marathi remarks restricted Not Organizations in are views conflict with Content hurtsContent religious sentiments and contained articles from other banned Film portrays Kannadigas in bad light Show shouldShow not include Pakistani a a derogatory manner. civilizational values. participants. books. Police seized books and arrested Not restricted banned(But from people for writing offensively resumed objectionablewhen shooting in certain locality in Cinemas stopped screening, resolution on law to punish State government passed State against oragainst caste religion scenes were removed scenes were Not restricted Not restricted Maharasthra) author. NO YES = 69 PARTLY=14 PARTLY=14 PARTLY = 1 = 1 PARTLY N/A = 12 YES 3, = N/A = 2 NO = 5, PARTLY = 19 = N/A N/A YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO State INC DMK INC INC INC INC INC INC INC INC BJP