The “Rs. 100 crore” referred in the title is the announced (in the media) cost of the movie Viswaroopam. For the money and also the tortuous journey the movie has taken so far, the society must get something of value, of benefit. What is it?
The issue is playing out to full house in the media, which is a benefit to the media corporates, private benefits (increased ad revenues). But, someone alleged that the movie hurt his (his community’s) sentiments (religious). This is to be reckoned as cost to the individual as also his community. The producer claimed that he is losing money by the bushelful every day the release of the movie is delayed; again a personal cost. Some personal costs are being balanced by other personal benefits.
The chattering class is getting a lot of exposure, gathering prestige. Private benefits. The listeners are experiencing hearing loss. Personal cost.
Court cases were filed. For the judiciary as such this is a cost, but for the lawyers engaged by the private parties this is income. Let us say things balanced out. Public cost and personal benefits.
The only matter that is being discussed is how the movie maker’s freedom of expression is being curtailed. This is like yesterday’s cornflakes for breakfast, soaked in milk, for tonight’s dinner. The government responds that it is its duty to maintain law and order (never mind Supreme Court observations). Right down the middle, cannot take sides. True balance. Thus far, no net benefits from this brouhaha.
From my perspective, explained in an earlier post The right of universal offense (http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2013/01/the-right-of-universal-offense.html), the movie maker would have done his best had he said, “I do not care whether the movie offends religious sensibilities, but this is what I have the freedom for.”
Please note the words I have put in the mouth of the movie maker: “… I have the freedom for …” I did not have him saying, “… our laws have given me the freedom …” That is, Kamal Haasan must assert his inalienable right, at a level higher than what the law says. This assertion is a plus, not just for him but for the society – a public benefit. But, the loss, returns from his investment of “Rs. 100 crore” will be his private loss. Though this too is a balance, I prefer this one to all the others, which feed into private benefits at the cost of either private or public costs.
This is a type of situation we do not come across frequently - the individual bears a cost for the benefit of the society. The understanding is that standing up for one’s convictions carries a cost. If it did not, it would be just a matter of making a virtue out of necessity.
As far as I understand, Mr. Anand Patwardhan went down this alley repeatedly and was mugged, repeatedly. Kamal Haasan avoided that alley altogether.
To push Kamal Haasan into this alley – if we want to, that is – and if we want a safer alley, we should resort to amending our constitution. There must be an explicit freedom guaranteed under the constitution: “No law can be enacted that infringes on the freedom of a citizen to hurt the religious sensibilities of a person, group …” Put it in the legalese. That will save Kamal Haasan in the dark alleys of our democracy.
Hopefully.
This is the minimum that “Rs. 100 crore” must fetch.
Raghuram Ekambaram
The issue is playing out to full house in the media, which is a benefit to the media corporates, private benefits (increased ad revenues). But, someone alleged that the movie hurt his (his community’s) sentiments (religious). This is to be reckoned as cost to the individual as also his community. The producer claimed that he is losing money by the bushelful every day the release of the movie is delayed; again a personal cost. Some personal costs are being balanced by other personal benefits.
The chattering class is getting a lot of exposure, gathering prestige. Private benefits. The listeners are experiencing hearing loss. Personal cost.
Court cases were filed. For the judiciary as such this is a cost, but for the lawyers engaged by the private parties this is income. Let us say things balanced out. Public cost and personal benefits.
The only matter that is being discussed is how the movie maker’s freedom of expression is being curtailed. This is like yesterday’s cornflakes for breakfast, soaked in milk, for tonight’s dinner. The government responds that it is its duty to maintain law and order (never mind Supreme Court observations). Right down the middle, cannot take sides. True balance. Thus far, no net benefits from this brouhaha.
From my perspective, explained in an earlier post The right of universal offense (http://nonexpert.blogspot.in/2013/01/the-right-of-universal-offense.html), the movie maker would have done his best had he said, “I do not care whether the movie offends religious sensibilities, but this is what I have the freedom for.”
Please note the words I have put in the mouth of the movie maker: “… I have the freedom for …” I did not have him saying, “… our laws have given me the freedom …” That is, Kamal Haasan must assert his inalienable right, at a level higher than what the law says. This assertion is a plus, not just for him but for the society – a public benefit. But, the loss, returns from his investment of “Rs. 100 crore” will be his private loss. Though this too is a balance, I prefer this one to all the others, which feed into private benefits at the cost of either private or public costs.
This is a type of situation we do not come across frequently - the individual bears a cost for the benefit of the society. The understanding is that standing up for one’s convictions carries a cost. If it did not, it would be just a matter of making a virtue out of necessity.
As far as I understand, Mr. Anand Patwardhan went down this alley repeatedly and was mugged, repeatedly. Kamal Haasan avoided that alley altogether.
To push Kamal Haasan into this alley – if we want to, that is – and if we want a safer alley, we should resort to amending our constitution. There must be an explicit freedom guaranteed under the constitution: “No law can be enacted that infringes on the freedom of a citizen to hurt the religious sensibilities of a person, group …” Put it in the legalese. That will save Kamal Haasan in the dark alleys of our democracy.
Hopefully.
This is the minimum that “Rs. 100 crore” must fetch.
Raghuram Ekambaram
4 comments:
More than Rs.100 crores Mr Kamalhassan has lost, it is the way freedom of expression has been murdered is worrying me and these sort of movements are gaining momentum.
I disagree with you Balu ... this freedom of speech is at an almost trivial level ... the excessive obeisance we pay and sentimentality we attach to religion are what I wish to attack
RE
Going by the review of the movie in the Hindu today, it is very superficial. Media and their public are necessarily superficial. Is Kamal Hassan superficial? Necessarily? Or because of the necessities thrust upon him by the superficial media and the equally superficial public?
Science cannot answer this, Raghuram! :)
Give science time, Matheikal :)
By the way, then, religion is superficial!
RE
Post a Comment