'A Dangerous Trend'

The impasse in Gujarat continues with theatre owners unwilling to screenAamir Khan's Fanna in the state, despite the Supreme Court ruling on Monday,June 5 that they could seek police protection to exhibit the movie. 

Earlier inthe day, the Supreme Court had dismissed the petition filed by Mahesh Bhattjointly with Gujarat-based NGO Jansangharsh Manch, asking the Court to directthe DGP of Gujarat to ensure uninterrupted screening of the film. "We arenot inclined to entertain this petition. However, if any exhibitor who wants toexhibit the film and wants protection they can be given," a vacation Benchcomprising Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice C K Thakker had ruled. "Youmay have the right to see film but you cannot compel the exhibitor. Let theexhibitor come here," the Bench said when Bhatt's counsel Colin Gonsalvessubmitted that "it was because of some group or people, who have taken lawin their hand" that the film could not be screened.

Meanwhile, Manubhai Patel, President of Multiplex Owners Associationmaintains his earlier stand: "We have just heard of the Supreme Courtdecision. However, we maintain our stand of not screening `Fanaa' as Aamir Khanhas not yet apologised to the people of Gujarat for his anti-Narmada dam stand."He says that the Gujarat government was ready to give security for screening ofthe movie earlier also, but the movie was not released in Gujarat due to Aamir'sstand. Aamir, on his part, has ruled out apologising once again. Updates

The transcript of BBC Hindi special programme Aapki Baat BBC Ke Saath withproducer-director Mahesh Bhatt

Nagendar Sharma: Why are questions being raised on freedom ofexpression in the world's largest democracy ?

Mahesh Bhatt: I fail to understand whether this is the same countryfor whose freedom our founding fathers gave up everything in their lives â€"their comfort, family lives and the choice of living their full age. If today wefeel that we do not have a right to say whatever we wish to express, then it istime to raise our voices for protecting our freedom of expression.

Listener from Allahabad: Sir, we live in a secular democracy wherefilm actors are seen as role models and their actions are replicated in reallife also. In such a situation, should not the film stars behave withresponsibility? Don't you smell religion and politics in recent statements ofAamir Khan ?

Mahesh Bhatt:  Let me make it clear that the public interestlitigation (PIL) that I had filed in Supreme Court was neither Aamir Khancentric nor Fanaa centric. What I submitted before the apex court wasthat a process has been going on in the country, which we have been seeing sincethe time film Fire was opposed. Shiv Sena activists had torn the postersand burnt banners, which was the beginning of a dangerous trend, and this hasbeen happening regularly since then. What I asked the court was why in ourcountry was the film that had been given a clearance certificate by the CensorBoard not being allowed to be screened in a particular state.

There are certain norms of every country and in ours, it is theresponsibility of the Censor Board and none else to see whether a film is fitfor screening or not. I am unable to accept and digest that since some peopleare opposed to Aamir Khan, they would not allow others to see the film. I hadprecisely asked this to the Supreme Court and demanded that Gujarat governmentreign in elements who are doing such acts and the state government be asked toensure smooth screening of the film in the state. What I had requested the courtis to see that freedom of expression and right to livelihood are protected. Sofar as the question regarding opposition to Aamir Khan is concerned, those whoare against him or his views have a right to express their views freely too.However, this has to be within democratic parameters. If one were to believethat any of his statement was wrong or his understanding of any issue islimited, you have a right to criticise him, but to say that you would not allowa film featuring him to be screened is a dangerous trend and needs to be checkedstraight away.

Nagendar Sharma: But Mr Bhatt if any actor takes up the role of anactivist on any issue, then he must be prepared to face opposition and criticismfor that. Since India is a large country, the forms of protests would bedifferent, why be worried about the consequences then?

Mahesh Bhatt: I agree that if Aamir Khan has taken up the role of anactivist, and if his stand is not liked by some people they have a right tospeak against that. What I am saying is that in the film Fanaa, it is notAamir alone, but livelihood of the entire film crew attached with that film â€"right from producer, director to technical staff â€" the livelihood of all ofthem is being affected. People opposed to Aamir are behaving exactly the wayAmerica behaves, that if you have to settle scores with Osama bin Laden youattack Afghanistan, similarly if you are looking for Saddam Hussain, you wouldattack entire Iraq â€" this is the point that I am trying to make. We live in ademocracy and are proud of that. Freedom of expression is not a right confinedto the personalities of film world, nor is it their sole domain. It is a rightof every individual of this country, and I am fighting as and on behalf offellow countrymen.

Nagendar Sharma: But Mr Bhatt why have you and other Indian filmmakers decided to remain silent on the banning of Da Vinci Code by atleast five state governments?

Mahesh Bhatt:  Who says so? It is a pure lack of information andif this news has not reached you, it is because media also selectively portrayssome things. Our Film Producers Association has strongly demanded that DaVinci Code be screened across the country without any problem. Since theCensor Board has given its certificate to the film, there should not be any curbon showing the film. Let me tell you that Sony Pictures â€" the distributors of DaVince Code, are members of the Film Producers Guild and we would fight forour members. It is wrong and illogical for the states to ban the film after ithas been cleared by the Censor Board. All this is a fight for freedom ofexpression and we would not relent.

When you talk of freedom of expression, do not expect to see or hear onlythat what you like -- at times you would feel uncomfortable and pained too. Tillthe time when your thought process is not disturbed and belief patternshattered, artistic expression is incomplete till that time. Politically correctsweet-talk is certainly not freedom of expression. Look at great revolutionariesand social reformers in history, all of them spoke and practiced what was eithertaboo or totally unheard of in their times.

Listener from Delhi : Sir, but what is the limit of freedom ofexpression? Can M F Hussain and the Danish cartoonist be allowed to hurtreligious sentiments in the name of this freedom? And, Sir, why did youselectively choose to go to Supreme Court against the non-screening of Fanaain Gujarat, as the state government has not banned the film?

Mahesh Bhatt: Let me make it clear that it is not for the first timethat I have gone to the Supreme Court for protection of freedom of expression,nor have I gone against any individual or any single political party. InSeptember last year, when the UPA government decided to ban smoking scenes infilms, we challenged that too. My point is that since you have not bannedsmoking in real life, your banning of its portrayal is unjustified. First yououtlaw smoking in the country, then only the government can ask the film makersto not show it. I have challenged the government decision despite the fact thatneither I show nor glamourise smoking scenes in my films. My fight is forsafeguarding the freedom of citizens of this country against hypocritical andanti-democratic decisions. Therefore your question is based on lack ofinformation that I chose only Fanaa and Gujarat for my PIL.

I assure that whenever freedom of expression would be attacked, I would be inforefront of the protests. Do not forget that student wing of Congress party,the NSUI has also opposed Fanaa in Gujarat and my petition also includesthat. So far as your question on MF Hussain and the Danish cartoonist isconcerned: yes, if they hurt religious sensitivities, their works should beopposed, but in a democratic way and from the democratic forums and notviolently. It is the responsibility of artists to be careful about socialsensitivities, but they cannot be condemned for other considerations. If theopposition is based on democracy, we would stand by it. However, if in the nameof protests, riots were to be engineered, then the government has a right tostep in and prevent loss of innocent lives at the hands of those who have asinister agenda

Listener from Dubai : Bhatt sahib, would you continue fighting forfreedom of expression even if some individual's work if screened could lead to alaw and order problem?

Mahesh Bhatt: Let me make it clear that already there is a SupremeCourt ruling in this regard. Law and order questions were raised on a film bywell-known South Indian director K Balachandran. When the matter came up beforethe apex court, it had ruled that it is the duty of the state to maintain lawand order, and somebody cannot be prevented from portrayal on the law and orderpretext, the state has to take steps to see that rule of law is maintained andunnecessary curbs cannot be allowed on any individual's freedom on grounds ofapprehension.

Listener from Delhi: Sir, are Indians socially intolerant? After manyyears of independence, different freedoms should have grown, here we find theyare being increasingly questioned. Are we heading towards a rabidly intolerantsociety ?

Mahesh Bhatt: Let us accept the reality that everyday one has to fightfor freedom. It is not a static thing, we cannot sit idle presuming that webecame independent on 15 August 1947, that would be a folly. The fight forindependence, dignity and one's rights is a continuous one and does not end atany point. I feel it is human nature to impose your views on others. This can beseen in our daily lives, our relations, we like to see things happen the way wewant, without caring what others think and this is the same at the nationallevel, that is why we experience such problems. Now the thing is how youperceive it. For example look at the film world, it is a big world â€" manypeople did not say anything on the issue, some others said a few things and leftit there â€" while a few decided to pursue the cases of their rights of freedomat a higher level.