Kamal Hassan, arguably India’s finest actor, has found his latest movie Viswaroopam banned for 15 days by the Tamil Nadu state government, following protests by several Muslim organisations who argued that in portraying the terrorists as Muslims, Vishwaroopam had hurt the sentiments of Muslims and cast them in a negative light. Following the decision by the Tamil Nadu government, several countries including Singapore have chosen to delay the release of the movie. This evokes several pertinent and serious questions that needs to be highlighted and addressed.
Firstly, let us address the ban issued by the Tamil Nadu government. The decision is questionable on the fundamental notion of what the state defines as being Muslim and being a terrorist. The word terrorist is by no means synonymous with being Muslim. Muslims refer to people of a given religious faith, the vast majority of whom are peace loving people with absolutely no disposition to violence of any kind. Terrorists refer to people who practice “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes” and they come from all religious faiths and political leanings. They are not exclusive to Islam.
When one chooses to make a film or write an article on the 9-11 attacks and the terrorist attacks and wars that followed, the portrayal of the terrorists as being Muslims is fact, not a perspective directed at making defamative remarks about Muslims. There is a distinct danger that arises from not drawing a clear distinction between terrorists who are Muslims and Muslims as fundamentally being inclined towards Terrorism. The latter is an extremely flawed perspective that I fear may be enhanced by the government choosing to ban Vishwaroopam. A movie that is based on 9-11 and the Afghanistan is always going to portray the terrorists as being Muslim, portraying them as Eskimos would be somewhat factually inaccurate. Banning the movie as being insensitive to Muslims however enhances the notion that terrorists who are muslims are one and the same as the peace loving man of Islamic faith living next door. It is both shocking and disturbing that the Tamil Nadu state government and its Chief Minister, Jayalalitha cannot make that distinction and explain that to the protesting organisations, all of whom are merely politicking for the sake of a blind populist agenda for which any cause is a good one.
There is also little legal sense in the ban. In banning the movie for two weeks, the government of Tamil Nadu has merely excused itself from its fundamental responsibility of protecting the right towards the freedom of expression, with the fortnight stipulation added making it all the more laughable. The movie is not going to change in two weeks, with Zulu tribes and Amish people added to the terrorist group portrayed to make it less offensive. In a temporary ban, the government, for political reasons, has chosen to pass the buck, anticipating that Kamal Hassan would take legal actions, thus making it the problem of the Madras High Court and a legal issue.
There is no doubt that Kamal Hassan would win the case, should sanity which seems to be a rare commodity these days, prevail in the High Court given the legal precedent set so far. Firstly, the right to ban a movie and the decision to allow it to be screened lies with the Central Board of Film certification, as enshrined under the Cinematograph act of 1952. In 2006, the Supreme Court of India, dismissed a petition to ban The Da Vinci Code while The Madras High Court dismissed a ban issued by the government. In another case, S.Rangarajan vs. P.Jagajivan Ram the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the movie Ore Oru Gramathile which had been banned for being critical of Tamil Nadu’s education system. The court ruled that “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threat of violence.” as this would “be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation.”
Given the precedent, the judgement should be in Kamal Hassan’s favour but that does not undo the emotional strain put on the man who starred, directed, wrote dialogue and lyrics as well as produced this movie for a whopping budget of 95 Crores. (950 million Rupees) The government of Tamil Nadu must be held accountable for passing the buck, and attempting to preserve its vote bank.
Equally puzzling and disturbing is the Singapore distributor and theatres’ decision to not film the movie as well despite the movie being passed with a NC-16 rating by the Film Censors in the Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore. Despite tickets having been sold, a decision was made to delay the screening of the film in Singapore. This leads one to conclude that perhaps Jayalalitha has been elected Chief Minister of Singapore in secret as well, given that the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to ban the movie takes precedent over the MDA’s decision to allow its screening. Equally disturbing is the lack of information offered to Singaporean viewers detailing the reasons behind the decision to yank the film off the theatres in the last minute. Given the small audience and their dependence on a small, loyal minority, distributors and theatre owners, one would assume would take more care not to disrespect their patrons.
There is little that film enthusiasts and Kamal Hassan fans, both in Singapore and Tamil Nadu can do for now, except hope that cooler and saner heads prevail. The politicization of God often rears an ugly head and this is yet another viswaroopam of such wonton ugliness.
Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami
Some of the information used in this article, particularly the legal bits were taken from this article in The Hindu which can be accessed at : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/responsibility-to-protect/article4341102.ece
The Social Swami 
Viswaroopam : For Gods Sake…
In Culture, Pravin Prakash, Social Commentary on January 28, 2013 at 10:51 pmKamal Hassan, arguably India’s finest actor, has found his latest movie Viswaroopam banned for 15 days by the Tamil Nadu state government, following protests by several Muslim organisations who argued that in portraying the terrorists as Muslims, Vishwaroopam had hurt the sentiments of Muslims and cast them in a negative light. Following the decision by the Tamil Nadu government, several countries including Singapore have chosen to delay the release of the movie. This evokes several pertinent and serious questions that needs to be highlighted and addressed.
Firstly, let us address the ban issued by the Tamil Nadu government. The decision is questionable on the fundamental notion of what the state defines as being Muslim and being a terrorist. The word terrorist is by no means synonymous with being Muslim. Muslims refer to people of a given religious faith, the vast majority of whom are peace loving people with absolutely no disposition to violence of any kind. Terrorists refer to people who practice “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes” and they come from all religious faiths and political leanings. They are not exclusive to Islam.
When one chooses to make a film or write an article on the 9-11 attacks and the terrorist attacks and wars that followed, the portrayal of the terrorists as being Muslims is fact, not a perspective directed at making defamative remarks about Muslims. There is a distinct danger that arises from not drawing a clear distinction between terrorists who are Muslims and Muslims as fundamentally being inclined towards Terrorism. The latter is an extremely flawed perspective that I fear may be enhanced by the government choosing to ban Vishwaroopam. A movie that is based on 9-11 and the Afghanistan is always going to portray the terrorists as being Muslim, portraying them as Eskimos would be somewhat factually inaccurate. Banning the movie as being insensitive to Muslims however enhances the notion that terrorists who are muslims are one and the same as the peace loving man of Islamic faith living next door. It is both shocking and disturbing that the Tamil Nadu state government and its Chief Minister, Jayalalitha cannot make that distinction and explain that to the protesting organisations, all of whom are merely politicking for the sake of a blind populist agenda for which any cause is a good one.
There is also little legal sense in the ban. In banning the movie for two weeks, the government of Tamil Nadu has merely excused itself from its fundamental responsibility of protecting the right towards the freedom of expression, with the fortnight stipulation added making it all the more laughable. The movie is not going to change in two weeks, with Zulu tribes and Amish people added to the terrorist group portrayed to make it less offensive. In a temporary ban, the government, for political reasons, has chosen to pass the buck, anticipating that Kamal Hassan would take legal actions, thus making it the problem of the Madras High Court and a legal issue.
There is no doubt that Kamal Hassan would win the case, should sanity which seems to be a rare commodity these days, prevail in the High Court given the legal precedent set so far. Firstly, the right to ban a movie and the decision to allow it to be screened lies with the Central Board of Film certification, as enshrined under the Cinematograph act of 1952. In 2006, the Supreme Court of India, dismissed a petition to ban The Da Vinci Code while The Madras High Court dismissed a ban issued by the government. In another case, S.Rangarajan vs. P.Jagajivan Ram the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the movie Ore Oru Gramathile which had been banned for being critical of Tamil Nadu’s education system. The court ruled that “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threat of violence.” as this would “be tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to blackmail and intimidation.”
Given the precedent, the judgement should be in Kamal Hassan’s favour but that does not undo the emotional strain put on the man who starred, directed, wrote dialogue and lyrics as well as produced this movie for a whopping budget of 95 Crores. (950 million Rupees) The government of Tamil Nadu must be held accountable for passing the buck, and attempting to preserve its vote bank.
Equally puzzling and disturbing is the Singapore distributor and theatres’ decision to not film the movie as well despite the movie being passed with a NC-16 rating by the Film Censors in the Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore. Despite tickets having been sold, a decision was made to delay the screening of the film in Singapore. This leads one to conclude that perhaps Jayalalitha has been elected Chief Minister of Singapore in secret as well, given that the Tamil Nadu government’s decision to ban the movie takes precedent over the MDA’s decision to allow its screening. Equally disturbing is the lack of information offered to Singaporean viewers detailing the reasons behind the decision to yank the film off the theatres in the last minute. Given the small audience and their dependence on a small, loyal minority, distributors and theatre owners, one would assume would take more care not to disrespect their patrons.
There is little that film enthusiasts and Kamal Hassan fans, both in Singapore and Tamil Nadu can do for now, except hope that cooler and saner heads prevail. The politicization of God often rears an ugly head and this is yet another viswaroopam of such wonton ugliness.
Pravin Prakash
The Social Swami
Some of the information used in this article, particularly the legal bits were taken from this article in The Hindu which can be accessed at : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/responsibility-to-protect/article4341102.ece