[Reader-list] Protest Demonstration agains events in Baroda: From Lalit Batra

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

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
http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/foil-l_insaf.net