Hurdles India Faces
Brinda Karat
EVERY day brings fresh evidence of the hurdles India faces as chairperson of the G-20 group in showcasing to the world, in the words of the prime minister, that it is "such a rich and living democracy of the world."
The hurdles are placed not by ordinary citizens but by the actions of the central government and of functionaries at various levels of the ruling party. Just take two most recent examples from different though not necessarily distant worlds – Bollywood and political activism.
The first example is the threat issued by Narottam Mishra, not a fringe element, but the home minister of the Madhya Pradesh government. He was referring to a song performed by Deepika Padukone and Shah Rukh Khan from an upcoming film 'Pathaan'. The BJP minister is heard telling reporters, "The costumes she wears are highly objectionable and the scenes reflect a contaminated mind – I would request to correct the scenes and her costumes, otherwise it will have to be considered whether the film can be shown in Madhya Pradesh or not." In the same breath, he described Padukone as a supporter of the "Tukde-Tukde gang", a reference to Padukone's surprise visit to beleaguered students of JNU in January 2020 after they had been brutally attacked by masked men on the campus, an attack which led to serious head injuries to the elected young woman president of the students’ union, Aishe Ghosh. The image of the frail young woman, her head heavily bandaged yet not bowed, led to solidarity gestures across India. The minister it would appear supports those who injured the young woman; else why would he object to Padukone's gesture of sympathy?
The moral outrage and policing is bad enough. After all, India does have a National Film Censor Board. The film has been approved by the censor board and is scheduled for release. Who then is the minister to decide whether a film is to be shown or not? It is even worse because his moral outrage about attire is such an utter fraud. Is bikini-wearing banned in India? Why so selective? Other films with actors in somewhat similar attire such as a current regime favourite in a recent film called 'Dhaakad', or the film starring the only Bollywood star chosen to interview the prime minister, whose co-star in a 2019 film wore the same kind of swimwear which is now found "highly objectionable" did not invite any comment, leave alone a threat.
The reason for the threat could be more sinister. Shah Rukh Khan is the leading man in 'Pathaan'. Within a few hours of minister Mishra's comments, the army of trained trolls started a campaign against the film alternating from a call for a ban to calls for a boycott. A reading of the posts also reflects a common interpretation of who the minister's threat was directed against. A video posted is of a man stating, "If you want to talk of desh bhakti, you can't call your film Pathaan"; others are even more explicit in their communal reading, comments which are so offensive that they cannot be repeated here. The minister is surely aware of this campaign. His continued silence could indicate approval if not complicity. Just a few months ago, a vicious campaign was launched against a film which starred Aamir Khan. It was based on a Hollywood film which won an Oscar – but here in India, precisely because it was associated with Aamir Khan, the film was targeted which reportedly affected its box office earnings.
Democratic-minded citizens in India should take the implications of these developments and the threat seriously. During the notorious McCarthy era in the US, Hollywood stars considered critical of the regime were accused of being communists – the equivalent of the "Tukde-Tukde gang" accusation – and virtually prevented from working in the industry. Here, in addition, recent developments indicate that for artists in Bollywood, even though they may not be critical of the regime, it is their name that counts in identifying them and their work as a target to mar their success.
The second example is of the Bhima Koregaon case. 16 people have been arrested in this case under the draconian UAPA and have been in jail for between two to four years. Of the 16, three are out on bail, one is shifted from jail to house arrest, and one is dead. The National Investigating Agency, which had taken over the case, argued vociferously against granting bail to Father Stan Swamy. Over 80 years old, frail and unwell, he was denied minimum facilities in jail; his death last year was nothing less than a custodial murder.
This week, a well-known and internationally-recognised forensic investigating agency called Arsenal Consultants has found that upto 40 files were planted by hackers on the computer used by Father Stan Swamy between the years 2017 to 2019; he had not accessed those files at all. The forensic inquiry also found damning evidence that a day prior to his arrest by the Pune police, the hackers tried to erase all signs of their activity, indicating they were aware of his impending arrest and the takeover of his device. This knocks out the so-called evidence against the dead priest and other co-accused in the case. Stan Swamy should never have been arrested. If he hadn't, he could have been alive today.
Earlier reports of forensic inquiry on devices used by two other accused have also exposed the planting of manufactured mails using technology linked to the infamous Pegasus spyware, which was then used as "evidence" against them. The basis of the entire case rests on these manufactured planted mails, which the accused were unaware of, and which they never accessed. The accused have been abused as anti-national, as urban Naxals, their reputations as professionals – among them are lawyers, professors, authors, artists – have been brutally besmirched. All on the basis of fake mails and other material.
Any democratic government with a minimum concern for civil liberties and citizens rights would take the forensic reports seriously, institute a fair inquiry and at the least, release the accused on bail. Instead, the NIA and the central government have completely ignored these reports, constituting one of the biggest cover-ups in recent history.
If this can happen in the Bhima Koregaon case, what is to prevent the agencies responsible for this operation from using the same technology to hack and plant material in the devices of opposition leaders? The findings of the forensic inquiry are in the public domain. The reports have been carried not only in newspapers in India, but across the world. How does this fit in with the projection of India as a rich and living democracy?
Can a "rich and living democracy" imprison women and men on evidence shown to be fake? Can such a democracy give space to threats and intimidation against film makers and artists? These are questions which face India and her citizens, which cannot be concealed by the pomp and show of G-20-related event management.
