The Nanny State

I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but there is currently a PIL under consideration of the Supreme Court, filed by one Kamlesh Vaswani, that seeks to modify internet laws so that merely viewing porn becomes a non-bailable offence.  Now my understanding of the law is a little shaky, but I do seem to recall that a non-bailable offence is one that usually carries with it a sentence of imprisonment of seven years or more.  Is watching porn really in the same category?  Does that, for instance, constitute a more heinous crime than that of the bus driver who recently crushed a young cardiologist and his little daughter in Gurgaon and was out on bail within two hours of the accident?

The petitioner’s argument is that easy access to pornographic material is encouraging violence and crimes against women.  Seems a bit like that old argument about women being raped because they wear “provocative clothes”, an argument that never explains why a 6-month old baby, a 93 year old great grandmother, or a habit-wearing nun are also victims of indiscriminate lust.

I’m no great fan of pornography myself, but somehow I find this intrusion of the State into what should ideally be the private concern of an individual, a little troublesome.  Sure, you should probably have some laws about distribution and sale of such material – especially to minors – but to lock someone up without bail for merely watching it seems a trifle harsh; besides, what one does in the privacy of his bedroom should remain his business.  Oh wait, Sec 377 already deals with that – the State took away your right to do what you want in your bedroom if it’s “against the order of nature”.

We already have restrictions on what we can watch in cinema halls and on TV; in the latter case, in addition to the Censor Board, there are people screening all shows to make sure that not one single inappropriate word gets through, no matter if the context changes its meaning, or if the programme becomes incomprehensible.  Thus on TV, using the word “ass” for a foolish person inevitably and inexorably leads to it being bleeped out, and the subtitle replaced with something innocuous.  Because innocent folk might mistake the word for something you sit on, instead of something you sometimes sit on.  (Though why "crap" is a more acceptable word for subtitles than "shit" is beyond me!)

Each time you take a flight, you are reminded that taking pictures of the airport is prohibited.  Ditto if you plan to take pictures of dams, bridges, buildings, vehicles, or indeed, anything that may be deemed to be a security risk, even though detailed scale plans of every single one of them are probably available on the internet.

The Election Commission reminds you to vote at 18, but the Excise Department believes you can’t drink till you’re 25.  And if you are unfortunate enough to fall in love, there are laws to penalise you if you decide to hold hands with – or worse, kiss – your significant other in public.

This inclination of the nanny State to monitor and supervise every aspect of citizen’s lives permeates all our interactions with it.  In a branch of the Central Bank of India (a public sector bank) recently, I read with some bemusement a sign saying “Use of mobile cellular telephone is not permitted in the Bank premises.  By Order”.  Why?  What does that do?  Prevent the GLBs[1] in the branch from catching up on their much needed siesta??

If you ask me, this attitude of the State probably comes from the great and glorious Indian tradition of poking our noses into things that don’t concern us.  Ever travelled by train?  No matter how much you try to hide behind a book or your earphones, inevitably the Aunty ji on the next berth will want to know all about you, where you work, how much you earn, etc, etc.  The State just takes all this to a new and much higher level.

What surprises me is the complete lack of response to these daily intrusions from those who claim to be concerned with liberty, freedom and justice.  Indeed some of the recently galvanised mango people want to go further and ban everything that may seem even mildly agreeable.  And those who seceded from the country to protest nuclear tests don’t seem to want to stand up for those whose testes may be at stake here.

This PIL goes far beyond mere pornography; the broader question is one of freedom of expression, and the rights of adult citizens to make choices.  Dealing with a similar challenge, the US Supreme Court had held in 1968 (Ginsberg vs New York) that while the State could constitutionally prevent children from accessing sexually explicit material, it couldn’t do so for adults, reiterating its views in an earlier case (Butler vs Michigan, 1957) that the government couldn’t “reduce the adult population...to reading what is only fit for children”.  In India, freedom of expression has been constitutionally curtailed for reasons of “decency and public morality”; yet I would argue that those considerations, while valid in 1950, need a review in 2014.

Freedom of expression and speech should be free from arbitrary restrictions imposed by an increasingly intolerant State.  We have already witnessed the banning and/or withdrawal-and-pulping of books.  Today the matter concerns pornography; tomorrow it could be prohibition, and maybe if no one raises a voice, one day, your freedom to choose your elected representatives.  Remember old Pastor Niemoller?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out.  Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out.  Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out.  Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me.  And there was no one left to speak for me 

Think about it.

Postscript - This post was written nearly a year ago, but rereading it in the context of current events, it seems even more relevant.  The furore over the documentary film made by a British film maker about the December 16th gang rape and the subsequent decision of the government to ban it is yet another nail in the coffin of free speech in this country; while various babas rant on about Hindu women needing to have x number of children and no action is ever considered against them, a film that explores the widespread social reaction that took place in the wake of a horrific and brutal rape is deemed by the nanny State to be too inflammatory to be shown to our "sensitive" public.

That public is so sensitive by the way, that the new Chairman of the Censor Board (in itself an affront to a civilised society) felt that the burdens of his office made it incumbent on him to release a long list of words that could henceforth not be used in any film.  Including Bombay.

And in news just in – Fifty Shades of Grey will not be releasing in India after all; Nanny can't take the risk of Indians being influenced by the film into becoming sadomasochists.  Or even lesbians for that matter, which is why the Censor Board insisted on removal of that word from the recently released Dum Laga Ke Haisha!

Meanwhile, possessing or eating beef in Maharashtra has become a criminal offence, carrying a 5 year jail sentence.  Other States such as Jharkhand have indicated their intent to follow suit.  One man's poison has been successfully prevented from being another man's meat.

Do I really need to go on?

---

[1] Grotty Little Babus.  See previous post, Election Fever, 25^th March 2014.