Department of Theology
Spring Term 2016
Master's Thesis in Human Rights
30 ECTS
Citizens as Censors
Understanding the Limits of Free Speech in India
Author: Henriette Tjäder
Abstract
Contents
1. Introduction ... 1 1.1 Background ... 1 1.2 Purpose ... 2 1.2.1 Research questions ... 3 1.3 Material ... 3 1.3.1 Delimitations ... 3 1.3.2 Definitions ... 4 1.4 Disposition ... 52. Previous research and theoretical framework ... 6
2.1 Social movement theory ... 6
2.1.1 Censorship movements ... 8
2.2 Censorship in India ... 9
2.2.1 The Rangīlā Rasūl controversy ... 10
2.2.2 A right to censor ... 11
2.3 Freedom of expression ... 13
2.3.1 Film certification and censorship ... 14
3. Methodology ... 15
3.1 Method ... 16
4. Results ... 18
4.1 Analysis ... 20
5. Case study: Vishwaroopam ... 22
6. Conclusions ... 25
7. References ... 28
Appendix A: Charts ... 31
Appendix B: Protest sources ... 32
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Anyone who follows Indian media somewhat regularly will have come across the debate regarding a rising intolerance towards opinions or acts perceived as anti-Indian or anti-Hindu. While the debate in itself is not a new phenomenon, it seems to have grown since before the national elections in 2014, which culminated in BJP’s (Bharatiya Janata Party) landslide victory. There have been numerous allegations that the government, with its ideological roots in the Hindutva movement,1 favors India’s Hindu majority and tries to suppress opinions
criticizing either the government or Hinduism. Some recent incidents that have sparked debates in both traditional and social media, even outside the borders of India, include writers who have returned their national awards to protest against intolerance,2 withdrawal of “controversial”
books,3 and scholars being arrested on grounds of sedition,4 just to name a few. NGO:s such as
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have criticized the Indian government for using pre-colonial sedition laws to suppress free speech.5 Against this backdrop, writers,
journalists and human rights activists argue that the Indian political climate is becoming increasingly intolerant towards dissenting opinions. Consequently, advocates for free speech are positioned against groups or individuals claiming offense and demanding government action. The question of where the line between freedom of expression and other rights should be drawn is ubiquitous, in India as well as in many other parts of the world.
The current debate in Indian media suggests that intolerance is the reason why it is increasingly difficult to express controversial opinions.6 Indeed, tolerance is one of the virtues in a
democratic society, along with individual freedoms such as freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, therefore, is inextricably linked to tolerance - for example, levels of tolerance are usually measured by the establishing whether or not individuals are willing to extend these rights to people from groups they dislike. However, researchers on tolerance argue that "[p]olitical tolerance does not require that everything be put up with under all circumstances;
1 Hindutva, usually explained as ”Hinduness” was a term coined by V D Savarkar for building Hindu nationalist
identity. While Hinduism was one of the attributes, Hindutva according to Savarkar was primarily ”[...] an ethnic community possessing a territory and sharing the same racial and cultural characteristics[...]”, descending from the time when the Aryans settled in India. See Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian
Politics: 1925 to the 1990s (London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. , 1996). p. 26-30.
2 Ashok Vajpeyi, 'Why We Returned Sahitya Akademi Awards', The Hindu (updated 2015-10-10)
<http://www.thehindu.com/>, accessed 2016-03-23
3 Smriti Singh, 'Penguin Pulls out Wendy Doniger's Book 'the Hindus' from India', The Times of India (updated
2014-02-12) <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/>, accessed 2016-03-23
4 Leila Nathoo, 'Kanhaiya Kumar: Arrest of Student Leader in Delhi Sparks Campus Protests across India', The
Independent <http://www.independent.co.uk/>, accessed 2016-03-23
5 Amnesty International, 'India: Crackdown on Freedom of Expression Must End', (updated 2016-02-17)
<https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/india-crackdown-on-freedom-of-expression-must-end/>, accessed 2016-03-23 and Human Rights Watch, 'India: Outspoken Activists Charged with Sedition', <https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/02/19/india-outspoken-activists-charged-sedition>, accessed 2016-03-31
2
instead, it only requires free and unfettered entry for all views to the marketplace of ideas.”7 In
other words, restrictions on free speech are primarily problematic if they mean that not all views can be debated in public, while some restrictions are justifiable. Traditionally, it is the prerogative of the state to determine these limitations.
In India, it is the seemingly active role of citizens in demanding government action to restrict their very own freedoms that will be of particular interest in this project. Whether it is films, books, novels or speeches- all are subjected to careful review, so as not to be offensive or objectionable in any way. Not only by government institutions, but by citizens, ready to take up action to defend moral values, religious harmony or communal peace. As one author puts it; “[t]he alarming trend that we see in India today is censorship by the mob, or in other words, the true democratization of censorship; it has ceased to be a punitive measure wielded by the government. Rather, it has become an inviolate and unwritten set of rules that are enforced by the people for the people.”8 Perhaps, freedom of speech in India is not so much characterized
as a negative right in which the government would do best not to interfere, but as a right in need of positive government action to be meaningful. What does this mean for individual freedoms such as the right to express one’s views, the right to dissent and the marketplace of ideas so deeply associated with the democratic ideal? This thesis aims to provide a deeper analysis in order to better understand the limits of free speech in contemporary India.
1.2 Purpose
Often labelled the worlds’ largest democracy, India is an excellent example of how rights and freedoms might come in conflict, and the challenges that might arise when trying to accommodate conflicting demands. Groups regularly demand government action to protect their rights by restricting the freedom of others – in this case freedom of speech. The reasons behind these demands vary from something being deemed offensive, hurting religious sentiments, containing obscenity or portraying a certain community in a bad light. The protestors often belong to a certain religious or ethnic community, or a certain social group. Previous research on free speech in India has shown that the act of “seeking offence” is sometimes used as a strategy to further other gains, primarily group rights and political empowerment.9 Being granted the “right to censor” has historically been perceived as a
privilege, or a symbol of group significance. This thesis will therefore try to analyze the role of citizens in matters concerning free speech, in order to provide some insights to how this dynamic of “citizen censorship” can best be understood. This will be done by examining the impact of protest groups on freedom of expression by, for example, demanding a ban on a book or censoring of a film. Central to the demands are the calls for government intervention to take action against the offensive material. In a greater perspective, the thesis hopes to contribute to
7 E. Goodin Robert and L. Gibson James, 'Political Intolerance in the Context of Democratic Theory', ('Oxford
University Press', 2011)., p. 15.
8 Mini Chandran, 'The Democratisation of Censorship: Books and the Indian Public', Economic and Political
Weekly, 45/40 (2010), 27-31. p. 31.
9 Ameya Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship as Strategy in Indian Party Politics', Comparative Politics, 46/2
3
a deeper understanding of the impact of citizens on free speech regulation, and whether India’s particular arrangement of group rights constitute a possible threat to individual rights and freedoms.
Previous attempts to explain citizens’ demands for censorship have tended to focus on a limited amount of cases where censorship has occurred. This approach only highlights those cases in which citizen’s protests are successful in placing restrictions on free speech. There are few studies that also take into account those events where the government did not respond to such demands. The author argues that an analysis which includes even “failed” attempts of citizen censorship would provide a better estimate of the extent of groups’ influence. Furthermore, no quantitative studies regarding these issues have been found in the preparatory work leading up to this project. A quantitative approach, which includes all protests within a certain time frame, would therefore contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the influence of citizens on free speech regulation.
1.2.1 Research questions
This thesis is guided by the attempt to understand the influence of citizens in restrictions on freedom of expression in India. The author will primarily seek to answer the following question: To what extent are citizens’ demands successful in achieving restrictions on free speech? In addition, the thesis will try to address the question of how we can better understand the dynamics of citizen censorship, for example regarding protest influence.
1.3 Material
The quantitative analysis will be based on articles from the three largest10 English-language
newspapers in India, namely the Times of India, Hindustan Times and The Hindu. In order to produce a significant but limited amount of data, a time period of five years has been selected. The data will be based on protests between 2010 and 2015, and the articles will be collected from the newspapers’ online and paper editions. Previous research on social movements will be used to explain some important characteristics of protest groups that are likely to influence movement outcomes. In addition, scholarly work on censorship in India will explain the origins of India’s free speech-laws and the arrangements of group rights which accommodate for the citizen’s “right to censor”.
1.3.1 Delimitations
The thesis does not aim to provide a causal link between protest events and restrictions on freedom of speech. For this to be possible, a qualitative in-depth analysis would be necessary, where underlying variables such as public support and the use of violence are also taken into account. Although a qualitative case study is included to illustrate some of the findings, it will
10 According to circulation figures provided by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, 'Details of Most Circulated
4
not allow for a deep enough analysis to make any claims of causality. Furthermore, some of the actors participating in protests are part of larger and more influential interest groups, using a number of strategies – of which public protesting may be one of them - to exert influence over politics. While it would be useful to evaluate all such efforts and strategies, this is not possible within the scope of this thesis.
Secondly, as this project is only concerned with the impact of public protests, the purpose is not to provide a full account of the situation for freedom of expression in India. Many such records are already available; for example through Freedom House and PEN International, who have published reports regarding freedom of expression and press freedom in India.11 These reports
include information on censorship, free speech-laws, bans, legal actions and informal practices that have a silencing effect on speech and expression. They do not, however, specifically analyze the ways in which citizens demand restrictions on free speech through government intervention.
Lastly, the purpose of this project is not to make any moral claims as to where the line between upholding free speech and protecting other rights and freedoms should be drawn, and it does not argue that freedom of expression should be absolute. Rather, it seeks to understand the
dynamics of free speech, conflicting demands and group rights. With that said, the author comes
from a background in a Western liberal democracy, and as such, it is through these eyes that the data will be analyzed and understood.
1.3.2 Definitions
Freedom of expression is recognized as one of the fundamental rights in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19(2) stipulates that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”12 This will
be the definition adopted in this project. Throughout the thesis, the terms “freedom of expression” and “freedom of speech” will be used interchangeably.
In order to achieve a systematic approach to data collection and analysis, it is essential to also define the concept of protest and what constitutes a protest group. Schumaker provides the following definition: “[…] citizens who do not normally interact with government officials, but who, under certain conditions (when they perceive that their interests are threatened by the activities of others or that the political system can be of use in furthering these interests) organize on an informal, issue-specific basis to make demands on public officials through
11 See for example Evan Rankin Amy Tang, Brendan De Caires, Drew Beesley, 'Imposing Silence: The Use of
India's Laws to Suppress Free Speech', in Tasleem Thawar Renu Mandhane, Ann Harrison, Sarah Clarke (ed.), (Canada, UK, 2015). Also Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World: India',
<https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/india>, accessed 2016-05-22
5
pressure processes”.13 This definition is useful for understanding the most important
characteristics of a protest group. However, it needs some clarification for the purpose of this thesis. For example, the line between the political and the informal is not always clear-cut, with regards to those participating in the protests. In the Indian context, protest participants might be groups with close ties to political parties (for example student wings of such parties), women’s groups with or without political affiliation, or individuals with no group association. In other words, it is difficult to establish the degree of interaction with government officials in each protest, not least in a quantitative study with a lot of data. Nonetheless, Schumaker’s definition is useful because it clarifies what is most important for the purpose of this thesis; that a protest is: 1) organized by citizens on an ad-hoc basis when there is some sort of threat or possibility of political gains, 2) the protest is issue-specific, and 3) the purpose is to make demands on public officials through the protesting action as a pressure process.
Throughout this project, the term censorship will be used both in its original meaning,14 but
also as a more general term including bans or other restrictions on free speech. In other words, “citizen’s demands for censorship” describes demands for all kinds of action which aim to restrict freedom of expression.
1.4 Disposition
The project will begin by introducing the theoretical framework as well as previous research relevant for the purpose of this thesis. This chapter will be divided into three parts. The first part is focused on social movements, in particular the field concerning their impacts and outcomes. It consists of an overview of extant research for evaluating outcomes of social movements such as protest groups, and gives an account of some of the external and internal factors that either facilitate or hinder their chances of influence. There will also be a short review of research on social movements and censorship. The next part of this chapter introduces research on censorship in India, both from a historical perspective and as a strategy for groups to demonstrate their significance on the political arena. It will demonstrate how demands for censorship have historically been used to further other gains related to group rights, stretching back before the time of independence when some of the most controversial free speech-laws were enacted. This section aims to show how the practice of “citizen censorship” has evolved, how it has prevailed and continues to have relevance for freedom of speech today. The third part of this chapter will present a brief summary of the international framework regarding freedom of expression, as well as an overview of the Indian laws on film censorship.
In chapter three, the thesis moves on to a discussion on methodological approaches and the operationalization of variables. This chapter also provides an account of the difficulties that were encountered during the process of data collection and analysis. It specifically addresses
13 Paul D. Schumaker, 'Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands', The Journal of Politics, 37/2 (1975),
488-521. p. 490.
14 For example; ”the process of removing parts of books, films, letters etc that are considered unsuitable for
6
possible implications of using news media as a source of data, and the difficulties of measuring the impact of protest groups.
The results will be presented and analyzed in chapter four. The purpose here will be to highlight and explain the most important findings from the project, as well as provide answers to the research questions. This analysis will then feed into the case study in chapter five, which seeks to illustrate the problem by giving a concrete example of citizen’s demands for censorship and government response. In light of previous research and theoretical assumptions, the case study will be helpful in order to answer the question regarding a better understanding of the dynamics of citizen censorship.
The thesis concludes by summarizing its findings and discussing these in light of possible implications for freedom of speech in India. Finally, the author suggests some ways forward for future research.
2. Previous research and theoretical framework
This chapter aims to provide an overview of research and theory relevant for the focus of this thesis. The chapter is divided into three parts; the first concerning social movements and their impacts, the second regarding censorship in India, and the third providing a short review of the legal framework governing freedom of speech.
2.1 Social movement theory
For more than half a century, researchers and scholars have been trying to understand how groups of people without political positions manage to achieve political change through informal channels; a classic example being the civil rights movement in the US. This field of research is called Social movement theory, but even more relevant in this context is the subfield of Social movement impact theory, which tries to explain the impacts and outcomes of social movements. Here, the focus is usually on one of three types of outcomes; political, biographical or cultural. The political consequences have received most academic attention, for example by studying policy outcomes. The scholar originally associated with this field is William A. Gamson, whose work – although criticized for having some methodological flaws – is considered an important contribution to the research on impacts of social movements and interest groups.15 Although many other scholars have contributed with important research
through the years, most of the literature to date has been concerned with western contexts. One who has contributed to filling this gap is Katrin Uba who, in 2007, published a comparative analysis of anti-privatization movements in India and Peru. In her project, Uba analyzed the influence of protests in the privatization process and reached important conclusions regarding some of the characteristics which make protests successful. Among other findings, she
15 See for example Marco Giugni, 'Political, Biographical, and Cultural Consequences of Social Movements',
7
concluded that protests which use disruptive strategies and have economic consequences tend to have an impact on policymaking.16
A “social movement” can be defined as “[…] actors and organizations seeking to alter power deficits and to effect social transformations through the state by mobilizing regular citizens for sustained political action.”17 It is relevant here to clarify that usually protests alone do not
constitute a “movement”, but rather, the act of protesting is one of the strategies that movements may adopt to influence public policy. In order to analyze to what extent protest events are successful as a strategy in restricting freedom of expression, it is necessary to also understand which properties and strategies of movements that are likely to result in certain political outcomes. There are some areas towards which scholars generally direct their attention in order to answer these questions. These areas contain factors that tend to be either beneficial or adverse to movement success. Even though there is a lack of consensus regarding which factors that matter the most, they can largely be categorized according to movement-controlled properties (internal factors), and those that depend on context and environment (external factors).18
1) Internal factors:
a. Mobilization of resources, such as members or capital.
b. Organization; the strength of the movement’s organizational structures.
c. Strategies, for example the framing of demands, lobbying, peaceful marches or large-scale demonstrations.
2) External factors:
a. Political context; a favorable political environment enhances the probability for movement success.
b. Public opinion; the degree of support from other parts of society.
The significance of external factors has been emphasized by Edwin Amenta, who argues that the political context is an important determinant when it comes to the influence of movements. The political mediation model, suggested by Amenta et al. claims that movements can have an impact on public policy as long as they operate within favorable political opportunity structures. In short, this model holds that “the impact of social movements depends on their organization and mobilization, but it is mediated by certain aspects of their political context.”19 For example,
a favorable political context might amount to political allies who bring issues of movements to the political institutional arena, by incorporating these claims into their own agenda.20
Paul D. Schumaker argues that policy responsiveness – the degree to which those in the political system adopt legislation or policy congruent with the manifest demands of protest groups –
16 Katrin Uba, 'Do Protests Make a Difference? The Impact of Anti-Privatisation Mobilisation in India and Peru',
(Uppsala University, 2007). p 12.
17 Edwin Amenta et al., 'The Political Consequences of Social Movements', Annual Review of Sociology, 36
(2010), 287-307. p. 14.2.
18 Giugni, 'Political, Biographical, and Cultural Consequences of Social Movements', (1583-1588). Schumaker
also makes this distinction; Schumaker, 'Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands', (p. 493). See also Amenta et al., 'The Political Consequences of Social Movements', (14.10)
8
depends on both internal (protester-controlled) as well as external factors (Schumaker refers to these as social support).21 He also demonstrates that some external factors can in fact be
influenced by groups and are not entirely out of their control. For example, the movement can adopt strategies that are more or less likely to gain public support, which, in turn, enhances the probability of movement success.22 Consequently, the most important argument to keep in mind
when studying movements and their impact is that causal relationship is difficult to establish without also controlling for a significant number of underlying variables. Scholars disagree on the relative importance of these variables and their role in movement outcomes, but agree that the relationship is complex.
2.1.1 Censorship movements
A significant amount of research on social movements to date has been concerned with movements’ struggles for equal rights or benefits, that is to say, the expansion of rights as opposed to their limitation. Still, demands for the proscription of offensive materials or the enactment of laws prohibiting blasphemy, are examples of issues penetrating the debate on free speech worldwide. Despite this, scholarly attention towards social movements and demands for censorship or other restrictions on free speech has been limited, although the phenomenon is neither new, nor unique for the Indian context. Jennifer Shelby, however, has analyzed the anti-vice movement in late 19th century America from a social movements’ perspective.23 The
anti-vice movement, with the purpose to prohibit obscene materials, was extremely influential as it managed to persuade the government to enact a federal statute which placed significant restrictions on free speech. A brief account of some of the important characteristics surrounding this example might be beneficial towards a deeper understanding of other movements with censorship demands.
Taking note of research by Della Porta and Diani24, Shelby argues that the influence of social
movements depends on the historical contexts in which they operate, their framing of ideas in order to attract supporters, as well as a common collective identity.25 She demonstrates that the
anti-vice movement, NYSSV (New York Society for the Suppression of Vice), founded by Anthony Comstock, was largely a religious organization which sought to protect society from obscenities and moral degradation according to Christian ideals. As America in the 1870’s saw the rise of printed media and other technological modes of communication, Christian groups and concerned members of the upper-middle class started to worry about the spreading of sexually explicit materials. Under Comstock’s leadership, the movement managed to attract more members and became more influential.26 As we have seen from previous research on
social movements, mobilization (of resources such as members and capital) can be an important
21 Schumaker, 'Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands', (p. 494-495). 22 Ibid. p. 496-497.
23 Jennifer Shelby, 'The Crusade of the Censor: Anthony Comstock and the Anti-Vice Movement', Habitus,
2/Winter 2011 (39-54.)
24 Donna Della Porta and Mario Diani, Social Movements: An Introduction (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006). in
Shelby, 'The Crusade of the Censor: Anthony Comstock and the Anti-Vice Movement', (p. 41-53)
9
factor in determining movements’ success. In this case, mobilization largely occurred due to successful framing strategies – ”[...] a message of protection and preservation, a message with wide appeal to Americans desperate to maintain the stability of the status quo after a tumultuous civil war.”27 Furthermore, through a common collective identity, members were bound together
by their concern of upholding Christian ideals, while at the same time defining their opposition. This enabled the movement to “solidify its identity as protector of Christian morality.”28 In
1873, the Act of the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and
Articles of Immoral Use, commonly known as the “Comstock Act” was finally passed.29 The
law placed further restrictions on freedom of speech with regards to what was perceived as obscene; for example information on abortions or contraceptives. Although it is difficult to establish the exact degree of this movement’s success from such a brief account of events, the adoption of legislation in line with the movement’s demands definitely indicate its influence. Three important features - mobilization, framing and the creation of a common identity, seem to have been significant for its impact. As we have seen, these are some of the features which social movement scholars usually identify when analyzing the impacts and outcomes of such movements.
The events surrounding the anti-vice movement go back a long time in history, but the movement and the context in which it operated shares important characteristics with the movements we see today. For example, mobilization is still an important factor for determining influence, even in non-western contexts. Therefore, the example might be helpful also in explaining contemporary movements’ demands for censorship and free speech-restrictions. In the next section, we turn to the Indian context for a historical account of censorship, highlighting some significant events that influenced free speech legislation at the time of independence.
2.2 Censorship in India
The history of censorship in India goes back a long time. While it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace the origins of censorship demands back to a single point in time, some incidents seem to be of particular significance for freedom of speech today. Such is the case of the controversy surrounding Rangīlā Rasūl, in the mid- to late 1920’s. Julia Stephens argue that the case of
Rangīlā Rasūl “[…] shows the mutual interdependence of expressions of religious injury,
debates about legal regulation, and arguments about political rights.”30 For example, it was this
controversy that prompted the British government to enact section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which is still being used to silence authors and artists in India, and evolved into the infamous blasphemy laws in Pakistan.31 Thus, the Rangīlā Rasūl controversy might help us in
understanding the role of the public in regulating free speech in India, and how religious
27 Ibid.p. 47. 28 Ibid. p. 49.
29 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 'Comstock Act',
<http://academic.eb.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/EBchecked/topic/130734/Comstock-Act>, accessed 2016-05-18
30 Julia Stephens, 'The Politics of Muslim Rage: Secular Law and Religious Sentiment in Late Colonial India',
History Workshop Journal, Spring 2014/77 (2014), 45-64. p 47.
10
sentiments came to be embedded in India’s secular law.32 Apart from this, appeals to group
sentiments played a significant role during the drafting of India’s Constitution. The manner in which individual rights were incorporated in the Constitution for example, is likely to have contributed to the status of free speech vis-á-vis other rights. In a larger perspective these events, taken together, might hold the seeds of what eventually expanded into the practice of citizens’ demands for government intervention and censorship.
2.2.1 The Rangīlā Rasūl controversy
In 1924, the pamphlet Rangīlā Rasūl (”the colorful Prophet”) was released in Lahore by a publisher named Mahashay Rajpal. It was a satirical work that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad in a derogatory manner by mocking his sexual morality.33 The publisher shortly
faced charges under section 153A of the Indian Penal Code; which prohibits any acts that promote ”[...] disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities [...]”.34 Criminal proceedings went
on for several years until Rajpal was finally acquitted by Punjab High Court, amidst fierce protests by the Muslim community. Following this, there were complaints that India’s secular law failed to protect the Muslim minority, and that it only catered to the Hindu majority population.35 Therefore, in 1927, the British government started taking steps towards an
amendment to the Indian Penal Code, which subsequently resulted in the adoption of section 295A. Section 295A prohibits ”[...] any deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.”36 The section was
highly contested from the beginning, not least by Hindu groups who felt that the government had given in to minority demands. Keeping in mind that the 1920’s saw widespread communal violence between Hindus and Muslims, the issue was extremely sensitive and the role of religion in national politics was widely debated.37
In explaining the debates leading up to the adoption of Section 295A, Stephens argues that the
Rangīlā Rasūl case represents a ”micro-history” of larger events that unfolded in the years
before partition, in the form of attempts to promote communal harmony.38 The events of the
1920’s might have been a start of the democratization of religious sentiments, in a way which continues to this day. The question in this context is how censorship demands came to be such an integral part of democratic political strategy, and it is towards this larger picture that we now turn.
32 Ibid. p. 47. 33 Ibid. p. 48-49.
34 Government of India, 'The Indian Penal Code', Indian Kanoon <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1569253/>,
accessed 2016-05-10 Section 153A.
35 Stephens, 'The Politics of Muslim Rage: Secular Law and Religious Sentiment in Late Colonial India', (p. 50). 36 Government of India, 'The Indian Penal Code', Section 295A.
11
2.2.2 A right to censor
How are the events in the beginning of the 20th century significant for understanding the limits
of free speech in India today? Somehow, government censorship seemed to be considered a gift from the state, something desirable, worth fighting for – almost a right in itself. Ameya Balsekar argues that “having the ‘right to censor’ has been established as a sign of a cultural group’s substantive political empowerment in the Indian constitutional order’s particular negotiation of socio-cultural diversity.”39 In other words, being able to censor has become something
advantageous in Indian society, due to events that took place in the years pre- and post-independence. This continuity between the present and the past, Balsekar argues, is often ignored in contemporary studies on Indian censorship. He suggests that the “right to censor” has become an integral part of India’s multicultural democracy due to several reasons. For example, cultural and religious revivalism were prominent ideals during the struggle for Swarāj (self-rule), and appeals to religious sentiments were important for politicians in gaining support in the years leading up to independence. In the framing of the Indian Constitution, no other event influenced its content to the same extent as the violence following the partition of India in 1947. This, according to Balsekar, resulted in individual rights being compromised while minority rights and group rights, especially of Hindus, were relatively expansive. 40 In fact, the
drafters of the Constitution looked upon individual rights, particularly civil liberties, as “gifts of the state” rather than natural rights,41 and held that the state had a particular responsibility in
protecting cultural, religious, ethnic and linguistic groups’ own preservation.42 While group
rights were quite extensive, they were not granted to all groups but only to those who were politically mobilized and influential at the time, and could pose a threat to public order if their demands were rejected.43 This could be looked upon as an incentive for groups to mobilize and
demonstrate their political significance, in order to be granted with group rights. So how did this dynamic of particular group rights play out, and how did censorship become a tool to be used by groups to further their own interests?
Balsekar suggests that part of the answer lies in how democracies prioritize rights of (cultural) groups in contrast to individual rights in diverse, multicultural societies. Some multicultural arrangements, like that of India, tend to restrict individual autonomy in the interest of group preservation. Balsekar refers to this as “[…]’Gandhian multiculturalism’: the notion that all
individuals, regardless of group membership, ought to accept limits on their autonomy out of
respect for all groups’ cultural sentiments” (emphasis in the original).44 He describes this as an
informal and contextual arrangement, advocated by Mahatma Gandhi in the 1920’s, where Hindus and Muslims should show respect towards one another’s sentiments in order to achieve complete unity. It is not difficult to imagine how individual speech rights would conflict with group values and religious sentiments, given this particular arrangement.
39 Ameya Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship and the Constitution of Democratic Politics in India', (Cornell
12
The notion of the state as a guardian of group preservation was demonstrated in the case of
Rangīlā Rasūl, and the adoption of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. However, another
event of censorship demands occurred at the same time, in the case of the book Mother India. The release of Mother India in 1927 sparked an outrage among the Hindu community for its critique on Hinduism and Hindu society, and Indian representatives in the Central Legislative Assembly demanded that the book should be proscribed due to the public unrest it caused.45
Balsekar notes that the first reference to Mother India in the Assembly appear on the very same day that Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code was enacted. However, the colonial government did not ban Mother India, something that seemed discriminatory to many Hindu groups, especially given the fact that the enactment of Section 295A was seen as a concession to Muslims.46 The cases of Rangīlā Rasūl and Mother India thus demonstrate how the failure of
the government to accommodate censorship demands was interpreted as political neglect of the offended group at the hands of the government.
Balsekar describes that post-independence Indian censorship policy was mainly influenced by Hindu revivalist concerns in constructing the Indian society and protecting it from obscenities and objectionable material. As more groups started to seek political influence, the notion of censorship rights was closely connected to political empowerment.47 The right to censor,
according to Balsekar, has a significant symbolic value; both as a substitute for material benefits from the political power-holders to their voters, and also as a substitute for participatory linkages within political parties between the elite and lower-level party members.48 He has
shown that the symbolic value of censorship in acting as a substitute for material incentives, is particularly effective for groups that are politically under-represented or marginalized. By “seeking offence” and mobilizing around controversial issues, groups signal their significance as a group and a potential vote-bank for incumbent politicians. 49 Furthermore, as an internal
strategy for political parties, Balsekar argues that symbolic strategies such as engaging around emotional issues is used as a tool “[…] with which to keep party members occupied as well as to galvanize their support bases, particularly as elections approach.”50 To summarize,
demanding censorship has been used as a strategy of groups to show their relative neglect in comparison to other groups, while at the same time mobilizing to show their political significance as a vote bank.
The “right to censor” inherent in Indian legislation inevitably contrasts with freedom of expression’s “right to speak” as we know it. Section 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code are commonly invoked in today’s free speech controversies. Next, we turn to a summary of the international framework of freedom of expression in order to place the Indian experience in a
45 Ibid. p. 154. 46 Ibid. p. 156. 47 Ibid. p 28-29, 151. 48 Ibid. p 35.
49 Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship as Strategy in Indian Party Politics', (192,195) and Balsekar, 'Seeking
Offense: Censorship and the Constitution of Democratic Politics in India', (53, 181).
13
human rights-context. This will be followed by a short overview of Indian film regulation, which is of particular interest for the purpose of this thesis.
2.3 Freedom of expression
The basis for international human rights law is that individuals have certain rights which are protected and promoted by the state. Freedom of expression, while commonly considered to be one of the most fundamental rights (at least in Western liberal tradition), is also one of the more controversial that often collides with other rights and freedoms. However, like many of the universally recognized human rights, freedom of expression is not absolute. This freedom can be subject to several restrictions given certain situations and contexts, for example with regards to the protection of public order. Laws on hate speech and sedition are just some examples of regulations that limit free speech in most countries, and require that a balance is struck between freedom of expression and other rights.
The fact that one individual’s right to express his or her views sometimes conflict with another’s religious conviction, ethnicity or values is not a new phenomenon. Neither is government intervention to restrict freedom of expression, whether it is by means of censorship, bans, or withdrawal of controversial books. However, freedom of expression by definition implies protection of even the most unpopular views. As the European Court of Human Rights struck down in the oft-cited landmark case Handyside v. UK, freedom of expression “[…] is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.”51 This quote highlights the very essence of
freedom of speech; it is the views that are offensive or controversial that are in need of protection. Recalling the Indian arrangement of a Gandhian multiculturalism which places restrictions on individual freedom to accommodate for group sentiments, one might wonder how these principles might be reconciled.
Freedom of expression is mentioned in several human rights documents, but the one most commonly referred to is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). ICCPR was accessed by India in 1979, and since then it is also legally binding on the state. Article 19 of the ICCPR stipulates that any restrictions on freedom of expression “[…] shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”52 The Indian government has made a reservation to this article,
declaring that it “[…] shall be so applied as to be in conformity with the provisions of article 19 of the Constitution of India”.53 According to the Indian Constitution, freedom of expression
may be restricted “[…] in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
51 European Court of Human Rights, 'Case of Handyside V. United Kingdom', (Application no. 5493/72;
Strasbourg, 1976).
14
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”54 As we have already seen, the
framing of the Constitution in itself was largely an arrangement of accommodating group rights and sentiments, paving the way for informal arrangements of free speech regulation. The Indian laws regarding cinema and film certification are a case in point.
2.3.1 Film certification and censorship
The Cinematograph Act was passed in 1952, and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC, commonly known as the “Censor Board”) was thereby established. The Board is a statutory body under the Ministry for Information and Broadcasting, and its members are appointed by the central government.55 Today, there are several regional CBFC offices working
under a common Chairperson. The Board is responsible for certifying all films before they are released, and suggests cuts to be made according to their guidelines, to ensure that the film is appropriate for the Indian audience. Censoring films prior to public exhibition is deemed “[…] not only desirable but also necessary” due to the particular impact of films – the combination of pictures and sounds in the darkness of the theatre – on the viewer’s mind.56 In some cases, if
a film is expected to raise controversy, the film is screened to an “advisory panel”, usually composed of individuals from a community likely to object to the film’s content, prior to release.57
In 1953, the Cinematograph Act was amended to allow the executive to impose two month-bans on films, despite a film being cleared by the Board.58 At this time, there had been
complaints that the Board was not doing enough “to protect Indian society from moral degradation and corruption”59, since many films clearly contained offensive material. This
critique has been raised even in recent controversies when outraged communities demand bans on films that have been certified and cleared for public viewing. These two month-bans are usually imposed by a state government to avoid the risk of violent outbreaks or disruptions of law and order in the state. In 1986, the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act was promulgated and incorporated into the CBFC’s guidelines, after women’s groups had started protesting against the derogatory portrayal of women in films in the early 1980’s.60
Despite being a government body responsible for deciding on film certification and censorship, the general public has, what might even be interpreted as a duty, of reviewing films. This is manifest, for example, in the procedure of an “advisory panel” where a selected number of individuals are given the privilege of regulating free speech. The role of each citizen as a public “watchdog” to protect society from moral degradation, is further manifested in the Board’s
54 Government of India, 'Constitution of India', (India, 1949).
55 Central Board of Film Certification, 'About Cbfc', <http://cbfcindia.gov.in/>, accessed 2016-05-14
56 Central Board of Film Certification, 'Film Certification ', <http://cbfcindia.gov.in/>, accessed 2016-05-14 Para.
3.3.
57 Balsekar, 'Seeking Offense: Censorship and the Constitution of Democratic Politics in India', (p. 175) 58 Ibid. p. 157.
15
guidelines and FAQ-section on their website. For example, the Board issues the following advice to the general public; “[T]he next time you are offended by anything projected on the large screen, do not walk out but kindly act, since your action may safeguard the morals of your fellow citizens and protect the children of this country.”61
3. Methodology
The purpose of the thesis is to identify government response to public demands for censorship or bans. It is an attempt to evaluate whether or not protests groups are successful in meeting their demands. “Government restrictions” will be used as the dependent variable, with values of either “yes/partly”, “no”, or “N/A” (for cases where the outcome was not known). The author suggests the following operationalization: success is achieved when the demands of a protest group are met, either through censorship or bans. In cases where the government did not interfere (at least to the author’s knowledge) by accommodating protest-group demands but the controversial issue was stopped nonetheless, the protest will be categorized as partially successful. This might occur if a publisher chooses to withdraw a book from the market due to public outrage, or a film producer decides to change the title of a film so as to accommodate the offended group. Partially successful protests will be categorized together with successful protests. The independent variable is “public demands for restrictions on free speech”, for example through censorship or bans.
When studying the impacts of social movement strategies such as protests, some challenges arise which are worth keeping in mind. One of these involves the difficulties of establishing movement success. In many cases, movements may succeed in reaching part of their goals or the results might be difficult to measure. There may also be several unforeseen side effects of the protest, which are either beneficial or adverse to the movement’s goals. The straightforward operationalization of success adopted in this thesis is an attempt to overcome this concern. Another difficulty lies in the issue of causality, that is, whether or not policy change would occur regardless of the movements’ efforts. This is a major concern for any scholar attempting to assign responsibility for policy change to a certain group. In order to draw any causal conclusions one would need to perform a larger study, which is not the purpose of this thesis. In order to answer the research questions and analyze the relationship between protests and restrictions, a quantitative study will be conducted. This enables an analysis of a large number of protests and an overview of protests vis-á-vis restrictions on free speech. There will be a comparative perspective since the design of the study takes into account every protest aiming to restrict freedom of expression over a given period of time. Even protests that did not result in government action will be considered. This will allow for a complete analysis of successful as well as failed attempts to produce policy change, and help us understand the extent of public influence on free speech policy. While the quantitative approach will be the main focus for this thesis, a smaller qualitative case study of one of the protest events from the selected time period
16
will also be included. The case study aims to incorporate previous research, theory and the findings from the quantitative analysis in order to illustrate the dynamics of citizen censorship by way of a specific example.
3.1 Method
The quantitative study will be based on news reports of protests that aim to place restrictions on freedom of speech. It is assumed that any protest with possible implications for freedom of speech will be reported in at least one of India’s major newspapers – the Times of India, The
Hindu and Hindustan Times. A database (Factiva) will be used to search all newspapers, both
paper and online versions, simultaneously. The articles will provide data on protests as well as their outcomes, that is, whether or not freedom of speech was restricted or not. Relying on articles from media has both advantages as well as disadvantages. It has the benefit of being easily accessible, especially within the limited time frame for this thesis. However, relying on news reports as a source does raise questions of reliability, such as the credibility of the sources. This was overcome as far as possible by using several different newspapers, which also limited the risks of any protests going unnoticed. The newspapers cover somewhat different regions and, taken together, provide data for the whole country. Articles from different newspapers regarding the same protests were compared and the results taken together in an attempt to provide an accurate account of events. The issue of reliability is again relevant when assessing protest outcomes. Relying on news reports for this was sometimes difficult, due to the fact that outcomes were not reported to the same extent as protest events. This resulted in a number of protests where the outcomes were unclear, and these are the ones categorized as N/A below. In the end, using news reports as a source of protest events was predominantly useful because it resulted in a significant amount of data, covering protests around the country. A downside is that the news reports sometimes lacked enough information to allow for categorization. The lack of data on outcomes, albeit unfortunate, is unlikely to have any consequences for the analysis since it affects only a limited number of protest events. Either way, these are categorized and reported as unknown when presenting the results.
In order to produce as accurate results as possible when searching the database for articles on protests, search phrases were carefully developed to generate the desired data.62 In the end, the
phrases and filters that were chosen were deliberately generous to allow for manual selection of articles corresponding to the purpose of the thesis. Filtering articles under the subject of “Civil Disruption”, initially proved useful, although a significant amount of articles had to be sorted out manually for focusing on other issues than freedom of expression. Unfortunately, while collecting data, the author noticed that the number of protests seemed to decrease significantly every year (going back from 2015 to 2010), and some well-known protests were overlooked by the “Civil Disruption”-filter. Therefore, the time period had to be manually covered again, using only the search phrases without filter. This resulted in more data on
62 The search phrases used for the manual search was the following: All of these words: protest*, At least one of
17
protests which had otherwise been overlooked. While this process was very time consuming, the risk of any protests going unnoticed was left to a minimum.
After locating all the articles, they were repeatedly read and the contents were categorized according to the list in Appendix C. Some protests had to be sorted out due to lack of data, or because they only involved a couple of people. For example, the widely debated “Wendy Doniger controversy”63 was not included due to the fact that the protesting actor was, more or
less, only one person. Protests in different states regarding the same controversy were treated as separate protests, as government response could differ between states. However, if protests in several states led to a restriction on a national level, the protests were regarded as one and the same, as there was only one governmental decision with the same effect in all states.64 The
protests were also categorized into groups of actors, depending on the protesting groups’ affiliation according to the newspaper articles, when this information was available. There were usually several actors taking part in most of the protests. However, they could be roughly categorized according to “religious groups”, “Dalit/tribal/ethnic groups”, “women’s groups” and “other”; comprising of student unions, local party leaders, or any other group of which there were only a few protests each. The religious groups were subsequently divided into subcategories according to religious affiliation; Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians (no protests of other religious groups were reported).
The categorization of protest outcomes was not entirely unproblematic due to the fact that as we all know, real-life events rarely fit into neatly organized categories. For example, there is no doubt that a restriction on freedom of expression has occurred when a group of individuals enter a cinema hall and forcibly stop the screening of a movie. However, to classify each such event as a restriction seems to be too broad and risks generating a misleading result, where minor restrictions on freedom of expression are deemed equal to those that have more far-reaching consequences. On the other hand, the protest group might not have succeeded in achieving a restriction of the issue at hand, but there might other beneficial side-effects following the protest that could work as a deterrence in the future. For example, in a case regarding controversial rapper Honey Singh, the protesters demanded a ban on the songs and that the artist should be arrested. While the songs were not banned, Singh was arrested, and therefore the protest was at least partially successful. In trying to overcome the issues of establishing whether or not a restriction has occurred, the author chose to classify outcomes similar to the above as partially successful, since they nonetheless have consequences for free speech.
63 Singh, 'Penguin Pulls out Wendy Doniger's Book 'the Hindus' from India', and Nilanjana Bhowmick, 'Sex,
Lies and Hinduism: Why a Hindu Activist Targeted Wendy Doniger's Book', Time Magazine <http://time.com/>, accessed 2016-05-22
64 This occured only in one case; the film Innocence of Muslims sparked protests in several states, but the film
18
4. Results
The method for collecting data resulted in information on 114 separate protest events from January 2010 until the end of December 2015. The geographical scope of the study covers protests in most of the Indian states and Union Territories, however, most of the protests took place in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh. Overall, films seemed to cause the most controversies; out of 114 protests in total, 81 were aimed towards the restrictions of films. Since many films are subjected to cuts by the Central Board of Film Certification prior to release, most demands for government action requested that a film should be banned or sent back to the CBFC for review. There were also some books, speeches, plays, songs, posters and festival programs that caused protests. Demands were concerned with banning, boycotting, arresting artists or refusing to grant permit to speakers. A list of all the data gathered on these protests is found in Appendix C and, unless otherwise stated, all references are taken from the collected material. The diagram below demonstrates the total amount of protests during our time period, as well as the rate of successful and non-successful outcomes:
Out of a total number of 114 protests, three out of ten were met with success (29%), while most of the protests (60.5%) did not result in any restrictions. For the remaining 10.5% where there was no data available regarding the outcome, it is likely that most of these are events where restrictions did not occur. This assumption is based on the process of going through the articles, where even minor restrictions were reported in the news. It is likely that any official decisions on behalf of the government to restrict freedom of speech would have been reported in at least one of the newspapers used for the study. However, since there is no evidence to support this assumption, the outcomes are preferably treated as unknown.
Looking at the results on a more detailed level, we notice that the number of protest events have increased dramatically in 2015 compared to previous years. A chart showing the number of protests each year is available in Appendix A. The year with the least number of protests was that of 2010, our point of departure for this study. In 2010, there was a total number of 11 protest events to restrict free speech. Each of these concerned separate controversies, from doctors demanding the removal of posters which allegedly promoted smoking, to the controversial
29,0%
60,5% 10,5%
Protest outcomes
19
banning of James Laine’s book Shivaji: Hindu King in Muslim India. 2011 saw 12 protests in total, however some of these were regarding the same controversy, with protests taking place in several states. Such was the case of the film Aarakshan, which caused protests in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Although the film was not met with any restrictions in these states, it was banned in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab.65 In 2012, 19 protests were reported. The
film Innocence of Muslims, which was released online, sparked an outrage among the Muslim community. Protests occurred in six states throughout the country, demanding that the film should be banned due to its depictions of Islam. The film was subsequently made unavailable for streaming on YouTube in India. Another noteworthy event in 2012 occurred when both Hindu and Muslim groups took to the streets in Chandigarh to demand a ban on the shooting of the film Zero Dark Thirty (ZD 30), for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. There was, however, no response from the government to meet the protestors’ demands. The next year, 2013, experienced a total number of 15 protests, three of them taking place in more than one state. Interestingly enough, all of these met with different results. The films Madras Café,
Shootout at Wadala and Vishwaroopam were, to at least some degree, restricted in one of the
states but not the other. Shootout at Wadala generated protests in Madhya Pradesh and Punjab, but was only banned in Punjab. Similarly, protests against Madras Café occurred in both West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. Whereas the film could be released in West Bengal, cinemas in Tamil Nadu refused to screen the film due to its depictions of the Tamil Tigers (Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam, LTTE). The case study of Vishwaroopam below will try to explain how in this
case, protests in one state came to be successful, while the other was not. In 2014, there were 19 protests. Five of them can be attributed to the release of the film PK, which met with loud protests from Hindu groups for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. Despite the heavy protests, no government action was taken to impose restrictions on the film. Quite the contrary – Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party), decided to exempt the film from entertainment tax to encourage more people to watch it.66 The film Kaum de Heere,
which is based on the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, faced protests in Punjab. The film has been barred from release in India, and is the only film apart from
Innocence of Muslims that has been stopped nationwide during this period. In 2015, the protests
against PK continued, among a total number of 38 protests. This dramatic rise can be partially explained due to the fact that both PK and the film MSG – The Messenger, generated protests in several states. The release of MSG – The Messenger resulted in a lot of controversy between the Sikh community and the followers of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the star of the film. Sikh groups demanded that the film should be banned for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. There were also widespread counter-protests from followers of the Guru, who opposed a ban on the film.67 Ultimately, the film was banned only in the state of Punjab. The film’s sequel,
MSG2 – The messenger, released later in 2015 and caused protest among tribal communities
due to its depiction of tribals and adivāsīs. The film met with protests in Uttarakhand, Jharkhand
65 The bans were lifted at a later stage, but it is noteworthy that none of these states experienced protests large
enough to make headlines in any of the larger Indian newspapers.
66 The Times of India, 'In Several Places, Shows Cancelled after Protests', The Times of India - Jaipur Edition, 1
January 2015.
67 These counter-protests have not been included in the collection of data, since they did not meet the criteria of
20
and Chhattisgarh, and was ultimately banned by the Chief Ministers in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.
Breaking down the data into groups of protesters demonstrate that religious groups account for a little more than half of the total number of protests. Other groups that the author was able to identify were women’s groups and Dalit/tribal/ethnic communities. The “other” category consists of groups that did not occur often enough to be categorized separately; such as student groups, wings of political parties, lawyers, doctors, etc. Out of the religiously motivated protests, Hindus account for 57.8%, Sikhs 18.8%, Muslims 15.6%, and Christians 7.8%. Additional charts demonstrating the number of protests for each group can be found in Appendix A. Since there were only a limited number of protests attributed to each, it would not be meaningful or statistically significant to further analyze the degree of success between groups.
Government response varies significantly; from no action to outright bans. Other actions have been to not grant permit to speakers, arresting artists, suspending the screening of controversial films or ordering the removal of scenes. There have also been more far-reaching responses, such as a state government announcing that they are working on a policy to ban songs containing obscene lyrics68 or allegedly passing a resolution on legislation aimed at prohibiting
offensive writing against caste and religion.69 Naturally, protests occur also as a response to
government restrictions, usually arguing that the restrictions violate freedom of speech. These protests, however, have been excluded from the study as they are not the focus for this thesis.
4.1 Analysis
The results show that protest groups’ demands for censorship coincide with restrictions on free speech in 29% of the cases. Again, without a deeper analysis it is difficult to make any claims of causality. We cannot know whether these restrictions would have occurred in the absence of protests. The observation that some states have imposed bans despite any record of protests indicates that there is more to the phenomenon of citizen censorship than meets the eye. However, it is likely that a protest is at least a significant contributing factor to why these restrictions are imposed, especially if the government fears a disturbance of public order. Theories on social movements have demonstrated that groups might use public protesting as a strategy for reaching their demands, and that in the Indian context, protests that cause disruption or have economic consequences tend to be influential.70 For example, state governments have
the possibility to impose bans on films to avoid a disturbance of public order. Violence, or the threat of violence, might therefore be significant for determining the likelihood of demands
68 This was the response of the Punjab government when women’s groups protested against songs with obscene
lyrics.
69 State government of Maharashtra issued this response during the controversy surrounding James Laine’s book
Shivaji – The Hindu King in Muslim India.
70 Uba, 'Do Protests Make a Difference? The Impact of Anti-Privatisation Mobilisation in India and Peru', (p.
