The day before, on Sunday, June 25, the Shahu Salokha Manch will be organising a Peace March in the city where different parties and social organisations will participate.

Sabrangindia has consistently reported on the recent violence perpetrated in Kolhapur, a city closely associated with the values of Shahu Maharaj and more recently with Dr Govind Pansare. Tensions had simmered in this southern Maharashtrian town, after Hindutva groups and representatives of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), egged on by rival Shiv Sena factions sought to escalate tensions over a controversial social media post (June 6) valorising Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan. Despite appeals by the Muslim community and citizens not to allow one incident to spread tensions and terror between ordinary people, attempts were made to “enforce a bandh and at least two three stray acts of targeted violence against Muslims was reported. Efforts by the local police and citizens helped restore some calm on June 7.

At the time, speaking to Sabrangindia, SP Mahendra Pandit had stated that the whole town of Kolhapur was under curfew presently, peace had somehow been ensured and added that all those guilty of the bandh-instigated violence would be prosecuted. FIRs were also registered against those who attacked a Muslim vendor on June 6 and six arrests have been made.

The meeting last Friday, was held at the office of the Farmers Labour Party. City President of the Nationalism Congress Party (NCP) R. K. Powar said, everyone should come together and give a fitting response to rioters. Then participants should march to the city square and tell speak on the vision and ideals ofd Shahu Maharaj.

CPI (M) State Secretary Uday Narkar said, Kolhapur is progressive land built on the thoughts of Shahu Maharaj. There is an outcry among the people against recent communal riots (June 5-6). Dr. Megha Pansare, district secretary of Communist Party of India (CPI), Satishchandra Kamble, Vasantrao Mulik, Atul Dighe, City President Sachin Chavan of Indian National Congress (INC) , Baburao Kadam of (Peasants and Workers Party-PWP), Ravi Jadhav of Janata Dal, Bharti Powar, Dilip Pawar (CPI), Subhash Jadhav, B. L. Barge, Babasaheb Deokar also spoke. Vasantrao Patil, Dilip Jadhav, Sanjay Salunkhe, Rafiq Bhai Sheikh Dildar Mujawar were also present in the meeting.

Maharashtra has seen a spate of instigated attempts at targeted communal violence over the past two months including Ahmednagar, Shevgaon, Trikambeshwar and Nanded. The brutal killing of one Lukman Suleman Ansari near Nashik has sent shockwaves. The Nashik rural police arrested six cow vigilantes for allegedly murdering Lukman Suleman Ansari on suspicion of transporting cattle for slaughter. These accused, Pradeep Adhole alias Pappu (34), Bhaskar Bhagat (28), Chetan Somawne (26), Vijay Bhagade (26), Rupesh Joshi (39) and Shekhar Gaikwad (22), were associated with Rashtriya Bajrang Dal, founded by hate offender Pravin Togadia. The accused have been remanded to police custody until June 17 and the police are in the process of recovering weapons from the accused, reported Indian Express on June 15.

Ansari, a resident of Padgha, Bhiwandi, was earlier reported to be missing. Ansari along with Pappu Atiq Paddi (36) and Aqueel Gulam Gavandi (25) bought two cows, a bullock and a calf for Rs 18,300 from a woman in Kharegaon, Shahpur. They were transporting the animals in a pick-up tempo to Padgha in Thane district.

Kolhapur June 5-6, 2023

Reports then of a group of Hindutva inspired extremist youth thrashed a Muslim minor for reportedly sharing a social media status hailing Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan. The status (social media) simply valorised Aurangzeb and Tipu and did not in any way attack another community or contain any words to offend or hurt the religious sentiments of any individual.

A video showing a mob of at least 8-10 men abusing a Muslim minor has surfaced online. Incidentally, organisations representing the Muslim community specifically wrote to the SP, Kolhapur Pandit urging that the truth behind the social media posts be established and the entire community not be held hostage.  Former corporator from the city, Adil Faras who was alleged to have been the “author” of the controversial posts clearly distanced himself from the post and has publicly asked the police to get to the bottom of who the real culprits are. SP Pandit and the IG, according to reports from the ground obtained by Sabrangindia, patrolling the streets and urging that the bandh call given by extremist organisations not be adhered to.

Following the tensions since June 6 in Kolhapur, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar had in a strong statement said that the ruling party “encourages” instances of communal violence, as has been reported by the Indian Express. “Incidents of communal clashes in Ahmednagar and Kolhapur have taken place over some mobile messages. What is the meaning of hitting the streets over such messages? Today’s ruling party encourages such things. Rulers should ensure peace and law and order. But if rulers start hitting the street and create enmity among two communities, that is not a good thing for the state,” Pawar said, addressing a press conference in Ahmednagar on Wednesday morning. He also said that the tensions were a result of the ideology of the ruling dispensation at work and that this must be deplored. (Reports in ABP Marathi and Indian Express)

On June 9, a Friday, senior activists and citizens active in public life met the Collector, Rahul Rekhawar pressing the civil servant to assure that those guilty of fomenting communal tensions in the southern Maharashtra town be promptly prosecuted. While deploring the social media post (valorising Aurangzeb) that had allegedly stoked the fires, they asked the administration why the entire city of Kolhapur, especially the Muslims held hostage to this one act?

“We expect that the administration (police and bureaucracy) to be governed strictly according to the law. After the incident (of the social media post) in Kolhapur city, fuelling a ‘reaction’ how were illegal assemblies and mobs allowed to gather and terror spread?”

Deploring strongly this attempt to spread and create riots, the delegation has in a written statement released thereafter pointed out that, “This is in the city of Kolhapur, which has a tradition of religious harmony between Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Rajshree Shahu Maharaj. The incident is condemnable.”

The issues raised by the delegation in the written memorandum submitted are:

1.        The events that took place dated on June 6 and 7, 2023 have violated the secular principles of the Constitution and the values of equality and reconciliation of Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj. Also according to these values administration and police more strict action is expected from them.
2.         Criminals should be prosecuted by law. But why was the entire society under siege?
3.         How could thousands of people gather in the city despite the ban? Who exactly were these people? How did they stockpile stones, bricks, glass bottles? How could the police not have an idea of this? Why was no action taken before the riots? When there was no response to the call made by the police to withdraw the bandh, why did not an urgent meeting of the representatives of both communities be called for peace?
4. By all accounts this riot seems to have been premeditated. It is the responsibility of the Hindutva organizations that called for marches and bandhs to control them. Failure to do so will cause the entire city to go through stress took The poor suffered. Why was no strict action taken against the leaders of these organizations? Why are they not being compensated for the damage?
5. It is illegal to demand the release of people involved in rioting and violence when they are arrested. On the contrary, the masterminds of this riot and the people who incited the mob to become violent by giving provocative speeches should be severely punished.
6. On June 7, at the peace meeting organised by the police and administration, the presence of the guardian minister Deepak Kesarkar and representatives of Hindutva organizations was avoidable Meetings with these representatives shd have been separate from the peace meeting. When the meeting one was organized by the administration and the police, why were the office bearers of the political parties present on the stage?
7. Proper Panchnama should be prepared for computing the loss of injured and damaged people in this riot and get them immediate compensation / government assistance.
8. What plan is the administration going to implement to prevent such incidents from happening in the future? How will violent, fanatical organizations be controlled?
9. It has been published in the newspaper that a report has come to the state government that there will be systematic efforts to create such kind of riots in the state. Do you know anything about it?
10. The police and the administration should try to create harmony and harmony by removing the prejudice created by this riot in various caste-religious communities.

Related:

Kolhapur Citizens meet Collector Rekhawar question impunity of Hindutvawaadi organisations

The post Reconciliation conference in presence of actor, Amol Palekar on June 26: Kolhapur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Coutesy: The Indian Express

There couldn’t have been a better platform than the National Gallery of Modern Art (NGMA) to raise the questions that he did, says veteran actor-director Amol Palekar, who was interrupted at the venue here when he became critical of the government.

Last week, at the NGMA, Palekar was invited as a guest speaker at the opening of an exhibition in memory of artist Prabhakar Barwe. He was stopped midway as he expressed concern over policy changes that will give the Ministry of Culture at the Centre the sole right to decide the contents and themes of exhibitions to be held at the NGMA in Mumbai and Bengaluru.

Palekar said there’s nothing to be “shocked” about what happened.
 
Excerpts from the interview:

Q. How did you react when you were told on stage, in not so many words, to shut up?
A. I was disturbed. Breaking all norms of decency… So I was disturbed. But I kept my composure and maintained my decorum, although the line of decency was crossed on stage.

Q. What exactly is the background for this rude intervention that you had to face on stage?
A. Have you seen my full speech? It is on the net. Please read it. I was only allowed to say half the things that I was meant to (on stage).

Q. This is not an atmosphere conducive to a healthy debate?
A. It is not. That’s what I was trying to say after I was stopped from speaking. The justification on their part for interrupting me… and they insist that they were not interrupting me but requesting me… Was it inappropriate on my part to raise these issues on a platform like this. But my argument is, in fact this was just the right platform to raise the issue because I was raising questions related to the NGMA.

I began by speaking about Barwe, how I personally knew him and what I thought of him as an artiste and his art. I can immodestly say that I was the only speaker at the event who spoke about Barwe’s art.

Q. Then what happened?
A. Then I said this was the last retrospective that was likely to happen in the hallowed and sacrosanct premises of the NGMA, and then I spoke about how the advisory committee had been scrapped. Ultimately, I concluded wondering what Barwe would’ve thought of this (the scrapping of the committee and the cancellation of further retrospectives of artistes) if he was here.

Q. They would argue that that’s not what you were invited to say?
A. I don’t think I brought the topic unnecessarily or said anything irrelevant. According to me, it was the perfect platform for raising the questions that I did. I mean, if I don’t raise questions on the workings of the NGMA at the NGMA, then where should I raise them? Should I raise them at a private dinner at the dining table?

Q. As a crusader of true democracy, how do you compare the attitude of the current government as compared with previous governments?
A. I’d say censorship now is increased manifold as compared to earlier on. I’ve been fighting against censorship forever. I fought my first case against censorship in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Even now, I have petitioned in the Supreme Court against censorship in cinema. In the Mumbai High Court, I’ve petitioned against censorship in theatre. I’ve been fighting censorship all my life. And I will continue to do so.

Q. What would you say about censorship laws of our country?
A. I’d say censorship in any form is wrong. Nowadays, anyone can get up and say his sentiments are hurt, that his faith is being disturbed. Or he can say he doesn’t like the size of Amol Palekar’s nose, so chop it off.

Q. Not yours sir, they wanted to chop off Deepika Padukone’s nose?
A. It’s the same malaise.

Courtesy: News Click
 

The post Where Should I Raise Issues on NGMA’s Working…In a Private Dinner Party? Amol Palekar appeared first on SabrangIndia.

All films, music videos etc meant for public exhibition in a cinema hall irrespective of its length or format (whether celluloid, digital or on DVD etc) are subject to certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) which was formulated under the Cinematograph Act 1952. The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, and The Guidelines issued in 1991 by the Central Government prescribe the regulatory structure in accordance to which CBFC discharges its functions. Through my Writ Petition(C) No. 187 of 2017, I have challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of all these 3 codifications which infringe the fundamental rights of artistes as well as the audience. No one had challenged the vires of these provisions for the last 47 years.

In light of the new technologies and developments, considering the paradigm shift in the mass media, it‟s the need of this hour that we redefine, reclaim and resurrect contours of our individual freedoms. Law must adapt itself to cope with new situations if it has to satisfy human needs and to meet the contemporary problems of life.

Background of the present challenge
In 1970, in the matter of K.A. ABBAS v/s UNION OF INDIA, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that cinematographic films in theaters were the most influential media of mass communication affecting the social mind therefore, exercise of censorship under the said Act was valid and necessary. The social situation based on which the said decision was given is changed drastically to such an extent that the decision needs to be overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Today modern technology makes dissemination of information available in real time through a variety of media, many of which are either not regulated or if regulated, not subjected to pre-censorship.

From 1980, we had Doordarshan as the only public service broadcaster. Now we have more than 800 registered television channels along with 1000s of local cable channels. We have over 780 million TV viewers in India. By June 2017, the number of internet users shall reach about 450 million. With the onslaught of television and internet, we are increasingly "interfacing" to predominantly cultural data encoded in the digital form. Thus, it's no longer the 'cinema' but 'the digitized world' which is the 21st Century media machine binding the universe. The direct corollary of this is that if the content presented/exhibited/uploaded on either of these two avenues is free of censorship or pre-censorship, what is the rationale behind the same content getting cut/altered/deleted and thereby being censored when and if exhibited in a cinema hall? This amounts to discrimination barred by Article 14 of our Constitution. The attack on our right to equality is challenged in this context for the first time.

Documentaries which are factual depictions of real life events are closer to the news reports than fiction films. If Broadcast of news, investigative reports are presented on television and internet without any pre-censorship, subjection of documentaries to pre-censorship amounts to discriminatory treatment of similar entities which is violative of our fundamental rights ensured by Article 14, Art 19(1)(a), and Art 21 of our Constitution. None of the above laws define a ,documentary‟ nor there any specific ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue.

Since the decision in Abbas, the power of certification as a means of pre-censorship has been subjected to large scale abuse owing to ambiguity and lack of clear guidelines of how the power is to be exercised. As a result, the CBFC routinely demands cuts of scenes or dialogue failing which denies certificates to films for arbitrary reasons : Remove "Maan ki Baat" from a dialogue; get a NOC from the PM‟s office for the title of the film "Modi Kaa Gaon", the film is unsuitable to get released since "the story is lady oriented; their fantasy about sex, audio pornography", among others. Milder abusive words were demanded to be cut from many films whereas films like Parched, Saat Uchchkke, Udta Punjab were cleared with an ,A‟ certificate but without any cuts. On 31/07/2015, the CEO of CBFC informed the Board about the audit observations made by the CAG on working of CBFC. He said that ,the audit of 2014-15 had observed that CBFC converted 172 ,A‟ films into ,UA‟, and 166 ,UA‟ films into ,U‟ during 2012-15, without taking any law or provision into account. It had also observed that there were inconsistencies in the time taken by CBFC for issue of certificates to various producers."

The Aurangabad High Court has recently set another worse precedent which was not challenged by the producers of the film ,Jolly LLB‟. After the certification of the said film by the CBFC, the Hon‟ble bench demanded 4 cuts in a scene citing a possible ,defamation to the judiciary‟. Till now judiciary has played a role of a saviour of citizens‟ fundamental rights. With this decision, one more predator of artistic freedom has emerged which needs to be seriously scrutinized.

Brief details of the challenged provisions
The present Writ Petition is challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 2, 3(1), 4(1)(iii), 5(1)&(2), 5A(1), 5D(5) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and Guidelines # 1 & 2 dated December 6th, 1991 formed under Section 5B(2) of the said Act, along with Rules 3, 7(3), 22(2) &(8), 24(2), 32, 33(2) and 43(6) of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 on the grounds that those are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Prayers sought through this litigation –

Since we are all bound by the constitutional restrictions on free speech as per Article 19(2), we are not challenging the entire Cinematograph Act but merely certain provisions thereof.

Among other reliefs, the WP seeks –

a. to quash Section 4(1)(iii) which empowers CBFC to carry out excisions amounting to pre-censorship which is an unreasonable restriction.
b. to declare the present CBFC incompetent to carry on functions under the said Act.
c. to declare that Section 5-B inapplicable to section 4(1)(iii) since the Guidelines under Section 5-B are for ,certification‟ and not for ,pre-censorship‟.
d. to quash the said Guidelines which are abstract, vague, imprecise leading to rampant erratic, subjective interpretations of scenes/language in a film amounting to unfair curtailment of the filmmakers‟ freedom of expression.
e. to increase the categories for certification under Section 4(1) or 5A(1) considering the age group and commensurate sensibilities of the audience in mind.
f. to remove ,documentary‟ from the ambit of definition Sections 2( c) and (dd), and to require documentaries to get the disclaimers regarding its content sanctioned from the CBFC.
g. to quash certain provisions which provide for appointments of the members of the Board and/or the Examining Committee, or the Revising Committee, or even the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FACT), without specifying any qualifications, leading to subjective, erratic, arbitrary interpretation of overbroad, imprecise Guidelines by the unqualified members which in itself is very unfair and unreasonable restriction on the filmmakers‟ freedom of speech.
h. That the recommendations of the Benegal Committee be given effect during the pendency of this WP.

Many core issues left untouched
I do not believe that the freedom of speech is absolute. This position raises the real problem as to where do you draw the line between accepted and unaccepted speech. Since the Indian Constitution has given us the framework of restrictions under Article 19(2), I am compelled to bow down to the nine limitations ,in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of offence‟. These limitations are overbroad and vulnerable to subjective interpretations. Most alleged violations of freedom of speech are routinely based on either of these heads. In India, speech-based offences are cognizable that means a police officer has the authority to make an arrest without a warrant and to commence an investigation without the prior permission of the court. Thus the burden of approaching the courts is not on the Police/State but on the citizens. So the citizen-victim suffers double jeopardy – her/his right is curtailed plus she/he has to chase the judiciary!!! Should even the judiciary have a right to judge the artistic content of a work of art? In a scenario where the fence itself eats the crop, whom should the artistes and the audience approach? Similarly the provision for Government censorship (under Sec 13 & Sec 16(1)(a) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952) is equally objectionable. All such attenuating acts are disrespectful of autonomy and ought to be condemned.

The post My Petition challenges the CBFC’s structure appeared first on SabrangIndia.