Offended Indian: A Snapshot

Demography: A rapidly increasing population with a steady stream of new converts cutting across religious, caste and class divides. Truly an all inclusive tent with proverbial strange bedfellows; of permutation and combinations that will leave the sharpest statisticians and sociologists bewildered. Good economic muscle and the wherewithal to deploy thugs and lawyers depending on the situation.
 
Features
 
Physical: Fine thin skin, can give Dhaka muslin a complex - make it feel as if it were a glorified sand paper. But as a downside it contains numerous invisible antennae always waiting to be ruffled by minutest external stimuli, be it a TV show, festival, book or a film.
 
Chemical: Highly combustible with very low kindling temperature. At the first level emits boundless energy to troll opponents; at next be prepared for physical attacks and even social ostracism. They are vigorous practitioners of ban mantra and their levels of rabidity extend beyond infinity.
 
Fantasies: As it happens to be an inclusive tent, they are very heterogeneous. Some may like to see Salman Rushdie's name only on tombstone with all his books buried alongside, while others may aspire to have M F Husain paintings used as a substitute for firewood. Some feel movie PK was the worst thing to happen since Alam Ara introduced us to motion pictures, while for others Viswaroopam evokes similar emotion. Some see red in the transgression of our exalted Khap compliant parampara and sanskriti and feel defending them is a divine right.
 
For all these people keeping away from the so called 'offending' book, painting or not watching a film is not an option. Because they firmly believe that it is the offended who will ultimately inherit the earth.

Also Read: Bangalore Beat

Culture And Anarchy

Recently I came across a news item that writers in Myanmar are trying to relearn the habits of free thought and testing the boundaries of free speech. Long spells under military rule meant journalists, writers, artists and others associated with cultural field had to undergo various levels of censorship to conform to what the regime thought was appropriate.
 
But before they cast away those conformist skins for the brave new world, it won't be a bad idea to share them with Indian writers and artists who seem to be staring at an increasingly intolerant society.

While for some learning these skills may be a tough grind as they have been under the corroding influence of democracy for more than six decades, but for organisations like say Tamil film industry or Hindi commercial film industry (who are either at the beck and call of Thackerays or Dawood Ibrahim) the learning curve to reach those levels of conformism may be a cakewalk, as they are almost there by default. Moreover the fact that the Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf has a good following in India will only be an added plus.

Another major challenge may be Indian conditions - they are different and hence the training may require some improvisations. In Myanmar the artistes have to contend with the jackboot of military junta and nothing else, but here they have to grapple with state, non-state, religious and corporate forces and that too with  many axes to grind.

Salman Rushdie recently put it very succinctly. He said that "because the writers, painters, filmmakers, artists don't have armies. We don't have the boys to put on streets to defend our film, novel or painting. So it's not hard to attack." He then went on to add that a "strange form of identity politics has developed in which people don't define themselves with things they love but by the things they hate. So to attack a book about the Ramayana, book about Shivaji or painting about Saraswati... these things are easy to do. That somehow galvanize the sense of identity of these extremist forces." 

And he should know, after all death threats and fatwas have shadowed him for decades.
Also Read: Bangalore Beat

Many Shades of Secularism

The Rushdie affair dating from the Jaipur Lit fest to India Today conclave is revealing myriad hues of secularism practiced in the country. The Indian society has torn apart secularism's insipid definition of keeping state and religion apart and added surfeit amounts of masala and put it through the blender.

Type A: He feels outraged that Rushdie is not allowed to come to India, but it is okay that M F Hussain was banished abroad.

Type B: He feels outraged by Rushdie's works and sees him as ultimate Satan, but is unmindful of the hurt M F Hussain's nude paintings caused to others. For him Hussain is a great artiste, though he, however, cannot explain why he got worked up over his film Meenaxi. I guess few movies met such a fate - got canned a day after it was released.

Type C: For him only votes count, so he only weighs whether pandering to which religious segment would bring more votes. Does not even mind double dealing.

Type D: He is the India International Centre type. Found mainly in metros and takes the trouble of visiting places like Jaipur, only during literature festival. Religion? what is that? Pass the grass please.

Type E: They played hookey at India Today summit and touted reasons, which sounded more knave than what school kids put forth to explain failure to do homework. For them the better part of valour was to stay away and tend their constituencies back home.

The controversy also brought to the fore the dirty picture of India's electoral arithmetic. It was said the Jaipur Lit fest controversy was whipped up keeping UP elections in mind.

Though it was part of the Congress strategy, along with many other communal sops, keeping elections in mind, the party could not make much electoral capital out of it. This prompted many pundits to say that religious sops no longer appeal to Muslims in UP. This, I feel, is too simplistic an assessment. If this was so, then Akhilesh Yadav would not have stayed away from the India Today summit.

In the UP elections, both Congress and SP had rained sops for the Muslims and since Mulayam Singh carries more credibility among the community, they opted for his party. It was a case of competitive populism.