[Commons-Law] Protest Demonstration against events in Baroda:
anil gupta
anilg at sristi.org
Sun May 13 10:29:59 IST 2007
thanks Shuddha and prashant for illuminating posts. My suggestion is
that in addition to all the ideas that are emerging on the subject, an
appeal by eminent artists of India may l have a wider impact because art
can and indeed needs to be judged not by artists alone. They have a
right to comment on the historical relevance of showing connections
between tradition and modern as was being attempted in the exhibition.
I feel very sad and hope that the wiser sense will prevail, young
student will not get demoralized and will in fact gather greater
fortitudinous strength from it, some of these experiences are not bad in
the life of young artists and scholars if only to cement their resolutions.
India is transforming and the greater freedom of expression will only
hasten this transformation.
I hope that the dean will be reinstated honourably and the VC will say
sorry to him, for all that he did. May be i am naive.
anil
Prashant Iyengar wrote:
> Dear Shuddha,
> Thanks for this extremely enlightening series of posts. What is
> happening in Baroda is a shameful reminder of the extent to which
> jingoistic communalism is still a regular feature of life in Gujarat.
> Just wanted to add my tuppence on the specific charges that have been
> made against him,
>
> I think the possibility of conviction under Section 153A (Promoting
> enmity between communities to the prejudice of public tranquility) is
> remote if one goes strictly according to its wording and the way that
> section has been interpreted. In a recent case of Manzar Sayeed Khan v
> State of Maharashtra (the Shivaji book case) the Supreme Court held that
> "The gist of the offence is the intention to promote feelings of
> enmity or hatred between different classes of people. The intention to
> cause disorder or incite the people to violence is the sine qua non of
> the offence under Section 153A of IPC and the prosecution has to prove
> prima facie the existence of mens rea on the part of the accused."
>
> So more than merely proving the intention to paint the particular
> image, it is the intention to cause disorder or incite people of
> different communities to violence that must be established. Whilst I
> don't for a moment underestimate the extent of politicisation of the
> lower judiciary in Gujarat, I think it will take fairly complicated
> judicial pirouettes for this charge to stick. The fact that far from
> fighting, the two communities are united in their opposition to the
> painting is also something I don't think can be ignored. AFAIK there
> is no offence in the IPC of "uniting people of different communities
> to violence against the offender".
> As an aside, I think it would be interesting to challenge the very
> existence of "public tranquility" which the section assumes the
> accused has disturbed. The section does not make an offence out of an
> innocent act committed in an atmosphere of hatred.
>
> On the charges under Section 295A (Deliberate/Malicious acts with
> intent to outrage religious feelings), here is Das, J's explanation of
> the section in RAMJI LAL MODI vs State of UP:
> "[The Section] does not penalise any and every act of insult to or
> attempt to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of
> citizens but it penalises only those acts of insults to or those
> varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs
> of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and
> malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.
> Insults to religion offered unwittingly or carelessly or without any
> deli. berate or malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings
> of that class do not come within the section. It only Punishes the
> aggravated form of insult to religion when it is perpetrated with the
> deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings
> of that class."
>
> Ok, I know it is offensive to describe art as "unwitting" or
> "careless" but within the context (wits/care to outrage religious
> feelings), I think it is.
>
> Anyway.. just my somewhat hurriedly compiled thoughts.
> Cannot be in Baroda for this demonstration. I wish Baroda was in AP.
> Regards,
> Prashant
>
> On 5/12/07, * Shuddhabrata Sengupta* <shuddha at sarai.net
> <mailto:shuddha at sarai.net>> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> (apologies for cross posting on Vikalp, Commons Law, Reader List
> and CAC
> lists)
>
> I have recieved a mail from Lalit Batra, about a protest demonstration
> against Chandramohan's (the MSU Baroda art student) and the
> closure of
> exhibitions at the faculty of fine arts, MSU Baroda, and the
> suspension
> of faculty (Shivji Pannickar) planned for tomorrow, 12th of May, at 3
> p.m. at Gujarat Bhawan, Chanakya Puri, Near Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi.
>
> Anyone wanting to contact Lalit Batra about this (or for more
> information can call Lalit at 9899091413)
>
> I am pasting the message from members of the faculty (Bina
> Sriniviasand
> and Shivji Panickkar) that Lalit circulated below. Although
> everyone on
> this list is by now familiar with this story, this notice does have
> details of the sections of the penal code under which Chandramohan is
> being charged - Sections 153A and 114, along with Section 295. I would
> urge everyone to pay attention especially to the wonderful alliance
> between VHP activists and Christian priests in Gujarat, against the
> freedom of expression of a student.
>
> Further, here are some details about the relevant sections:
>
> Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of
> religion, race etc, commiting acts prejudicial to the harmony of
> the public
>
> According to the section whoever by words or expression promotes
> enmity
> between different groups of the country on the grounds of religion,
> race, place of birth, residence, language, or any such grounds or
> commits an act which is prejudicial to the harmony of he public is
> culpable under the section with imprisonment which may extend to
> three
> years with or without fine. Further, when the offence is committed on
> any religious place or any place worship the imprisonment can
> extend to
> 5 years with or without fine. The offence is non-bailable and even
> cognizable (after 1898) ie. Police can arrest a person under the
> section
> without warrant.
>
>
> Section 295: Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to
> insult
> the religion of any class
>
> Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any
> object
> held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby
> insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge
> that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction,
> damage
> or defilement as a insult to their religion, shall be punished with
> imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
> years, or with fine, or with both.
>
> Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage
> religious feelings
>
> Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious
> feelings or
> any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs 295A.
> Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious
> feelings or
> any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
>
> Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the
> religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either
> spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or
> otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious
> beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
> description for a term which may extend to three years, or with
> fine, or
> with both.
>
> Section 114 is about abetment and presence when any crime is being
> committed.
>
> As a close reading of these sections would suggest, the problem
> lies not
> only with the act, but also with the idea of intention.
>
> The problem is, Chandramohan's lawyers can at best argue that his
> actions are not evidence of his intentions. However, an artist is such
> only because his actions have deliberation. Thus, to save
> Chandramohan
> the person from a prison sentence, his lawyers might have to jettison
> Chandramohan's identity as an artist. Such an argument, given the
> circumstances that the images in question were made for an exam of the
> fine arts department, may be impossible, or at the very least,
> difficult
> to sustain,
>
> The reason that distinguishes between the scrawls made by a chimpanzee
> and an abstract expressionist has to do with the idea of
> intention. To
> protect Chandramohan's act as an instance of un0 malicious
> behavious, it
> has to be freed from the matrix of artistic intention. We cannot
> really
> quarrel about the purport of the intention, because the onus of
> proving
> hurt, has to do not with the hurter, but with the hurtee.
>
> Hurt, is a subjective feeling, and as long as the hurt say that they
> feel their pain, we are in no position to debate whether their pain or
> humiliation is real or imagined. There cannot, in fact be,
> imagined or
> feigned pain, because a court is in no position to measure the
> intensity
> of feeling on any given issue. Thus when a person says that their
> religious sensibilities are hurt, a court has to listen, (if the
> injury
> to sensibilities is mentioned as a cause of harm). Chandramohan cannot
> say that he intended to cause pain. He can only say that he
> intended to
> cause meaning to be read into his actions. If someone says that they
> read meaning in his actions in a manner that caused them pain,
> there is
> very little that Chandramohan or his lawyers can say in defence
> against
> such a charge
>
> The only thing that can be debated is the question of whether or not
> there was 'intention'in the first place. As an artist, Chandramohan
> cannot run away from intention.
>
> Therefore the only recourse that anyone wishing to protect the freedom
> of speech in this case is to subject the law itself to criticism,
> not to
> speculate about whether it's application in this case is an
> instance of
> its misreading.
>
> This means arguing for a straightforward assault on sections 153 and
> 295. The only way that an artist or a writer's freedom of speech
> can be
> protected against religious zealots is through a complete and total
> repeal of sections 153 and 295.
>
> Having said that, arguing for these provisions to be struck down also
> means accepting the right of the Hindutva forces to insult and
> (through
> speech acts, signs, and visual representations) humiliate and attack
> people of other religions and convictions.
>
> I have no problem with that, but many who will rightly condemn the
> freedom of Chandramohan to act as he has done, will also call for
> bans
> on the 'hate speech' of those who have moved the machinery of law and
> order against him.
>
> Let it be understood that to do that will only invite further assaults
> on the freedom of art students like Chandramohan in the future.
> Meanwhile, I would urge everyone to attend as many meetings and
> protests, as possible on this issue, and make people aware of the
> draconian nature of sections 153 and 295.
>
> best
>
> Shuddha
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> You are all aware of the latest Sangh Parivar
> offensive against the
> democratic rights of the students and Faculty members
> of the well known Fine
> Arts Faculty of Baroda, M.S.University. The Fine Arts
> Faculty is one of the
> best institutions within the M.S.University, which has
> managed to retain
> high academic standards, in the face of the general
> academic deterioration
> within the University.
>
> The recent incident of hooliganism and blatant
> bullying unleashed by the
> Sangh Parivar has sent shock waves all over the
> country. It took place on
> Wednesday, 9th May 2007, at around 3 p.m. As part of
> the examination
> procedure underway in the Faculty, students are
> supposed to put up their
> works which are to be assessed by external examiners
> who come in from
> outside the city for this purpose. Accordingly,
> students had put up their
> installations around the Faculty campus. Some of
> these installations,
> (graphic prints) by Chandra Mohan attracted the wrath
> of the BJP leader
> Neeraj Jain, who barged into the campus with a bunch
> of goons and started
> disrupting the atmosphere, using abusive language and
> mouthing threats.
> They roughed up the Chandra Mohan and accused him of
> offending their
> religious sentiments, saying that he had portrayed
> Durga Mata in an obscene
> way. Not by any stretch of imagination did the prints
> actually portray any
> goddess. Under the leadership of Neeraj Jain (who had
> incidentally played a
> very dubious role in the May 2006 riots that followed
> the demolition of a
> 200 year old dargah in the heart of the city), and
> with the police in tow,
> they took Chandra Mohan and a friend of his away to
> the Sayajiganj police
> station. Shivji Panickkar, the acting Dean of the
> Fine Arts Faculty, was
> also threatened with dire consequences by Neeraj Jain
> and his goons.
> Chandra Mohan's friend was released later, but he was
> himself charged under
> sections 153 and 114. Later, on 10th May, when the
> bail application came up
> for hearing, two more charges were slapped on him,
> namely, Section 295 A and
> 295 B, and he was taken under judicial custody, and
> moved to the Central
> Jail. By now, Christian fundamentalists had joined
> hands with the
> Hindutvavadis. Alongwith the VHP and BJP crowds,
> reportedly, there were at
> least 40 priests in the court when Chandra Mohan's
> bail application came up
> for hearing. The priests were objecting to some
> painting to do with a
> cross - which, they thought offended their religious
> feelings.
>
> In the meantime, Shivji Panickkar met the Vice
> Chancellor, who basically,
> wanted him to make a statement that was nothing short
> of an apology for
> putting up offensive installations. Panickkar refused
> to do so. After
> this, the students submitted a statement expressing
> thier concern over such
> tactics, and with a set of their demands, which
> included police bandobast
> for the Faculty. Reportedly, Neeraj Jain barged into
> the Vice Chancellor's
> office on the same day, and threatened that he would
> make sure that the
> entire city would shut down if a single case is
> registered against him.
>
> As of now, all efforts are on to get Chandra Mohan
> released.
>
> However, what is of grave concern in this entire
> unfolding of events is the
> fascist agendas that underly the actions of the likes
> of Neeraj Jain.
> Citizenship and democratic rights face a grave crisis
> in the State of
> Gujarat and elsewhere. The nexus between the police
> and elements of the
> Sangh Parivar is so clearly established (it has been
> so since 2002) and it
> is also clear that fascist tactics affect everybody.
> In this instance, it
> is not only a matter for the artist community to
> agitate about. It is for
> ALL of us to sit up and take notice of what is going
> on in the name of
> religion. If we do not counter these tactics NOW, we
> are all going to be
> crushed sooner or later, either in our work arenas or
> within the confines of
> our homes. The dangers of giving in to or being cowed
> down by these forces
> cannot be underestimated.
>
> THE FACULTY OF FINE ARTS HAS PLANNED A LARGE
> DEMONSTRATION FOR 14TH MAY
> 2007, MONDAY WHERE ARTISTS, LAWYERS, DOCTORS, ORDINARY
> CITIZENS FROM ALL
> OVER THE COUNTRY WILL GET TOGETHER IN PROTEST AGAINST
> SUCH GAGGING OF
> EXPRESSION AND VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS. PLEASE
> DO COME FOR THE
> DEMONSTRATION, AND MOTIVATE OTHERS TO JOIN IT. THE
> TIME TO ACT IS UPON US,
> WE CANNOT ABDICATE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS SOCIETY,
> OURSELVES AND THE
> YOUNGER GENERATIONS.
>
> VENUE: FINE ARTS FACULTY, M.S.UNIVERSITY , FATEHGANJ,
> BARODA
> TIME: 2 PM ONWARDS
>
> CONTACT PHONE NUMBERS:
> BINA SRINIVASAN: 9879377280
> SHIVJI PANICKKAR: 9898403097
>
> Best
> Bina
>
> PS: pls. circulate this email to as many people as
> possible. Thanks.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the
> answer. Try it
> now.
> http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foil-l mailing list
> Foil-l at insaf.net <mailto:Foil-l at insaf.net>
> http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/foil-l_insaf.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> commons-law mailing list
> commons-law at sarai.net <mailto:commons-law at sarai.net>
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> commons-law mailing list
> commons-law at sarai.net
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/commons-law
>
--
Prof. Anil K Gupta
Professor, Indian Institute of Management
Ahmedabad 380015, India anilg at sristi.org or anilgb at gmail.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Page: http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~anilg/
SRISTI Page: http://www.sristi.org,
GIAN Page: http://www.gian.org
NIF : www.nifindia.org www.nif.org.in
blog: sristi.org/anilg
National Innovation Foundation (NIF): http://www.nifindia.org
Phone Numbers: (0) +91 (79) 2632 4927 (o) +91 79 2630 4979 ( r),
2630 9973 O ), 2632 4930 ( secty); Fax Number: +91 (79) 26307341
More information about the commons-law
mailing list