India's Censorship Craze
MUMBAI -- American pop icon Paris Hilton corrupts Indian minds. That, at least, is the fear held by mandarins of Indian culture. So they've barred television channels in India from airing Ms. Hilton's new music video, "Stars Are Blind," in yet another example of the censorship fever sweeping the country.
Movie channels in Mumbai were recently blocked because they purportedly showed adult content. That's despite the fact these channels routinely edit out all nudity and sex. And it's only a few months since the film version of "The Da Vinci Code" was banned in several states after Christian groups protested.
In such a climate, nothing is too trivial to escape the target of aspiring censors. One Mumbai-based crusader for tighter controls on Indian television, Pratibha Naithani, has even called for an investigation into "violence on cartoon channels." Why stop at violence? Perhaps Ms. Naithani hasn't noticed yet, but in addition to routinely knocking things over, Tom and Jerry also frolic in the nude.
Such extreme examples are a reaction to the foreign cultural influences that have flooded in since India began opening up its previously closed economy to the outside world in 1991. That produced a predictable backlash from traditionalists whose sense of identity, and even their political base, is threatened by foreign influence. They seek refuge in arguing that India's religion, culture and traditions need protecting from the forces of globalization.
Unlike the U.S., the Indian constitution provides little protection against censorship. Although it professes to give all citizens "the right to freedom of speech and expression," that is qualified by so many exceptions as to make any protection almost meaningless. These include "the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of 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."
Naturally, it falls upon government bureaucrats to decide what falls within these exceptions. And the problem is that India has long had a climate where it's considered perfectly acceptable for the state to meddle in what its citizens can watch, and listen to.
In 1968, for instance, "abbreviated skirts" and scenes "suggestive of soliciting" were enough to send "A Tale of Four Cities," a documentary partly set in Mumbai's red-light districts, all the way to the Supreme Court. India's top judicial body duly upheld its ban , setting a precedent for censorship that is still cited today. It ruled that films had to be scrutinized more carefully than other media because "a person reading a book or other writing [or] hearing a speech or viewing a painting or sculpture is not so deeply stirred as by seeing a motion picture." In the view of the court, Indians were like putty in the hands of these powerful media, incapable of making their own decisions or using their own discretion.
Such paternalism was quite in synch with the Fabian Socialism that India had adopted. The state was supreme in all matters, and whatever freedom it allowed its citizens -- "subjects" would be as apt a term -- was at its discretion. In India, we call it a mai-baap sarkar, which literally means "mother-father government," indicating the all-encompassing authority of the state. Initially, most Indians took this for granted, and did not protest too much. The freedom that mattered to them in the early years of independence was political freedom, which was their source of national pride.
But, in recent years, things have begun to change. The economic growth triggered by India's opening up has created a much larger middle class. And the intellectual influences that have poured in from elsewhere in the world have made this middle class more alive to the need to fight for freedom of expression.
That means the recent trend toward increased censorship has not gone without a fight. Where once censorship was taken for granted, it is now debated, and the army of news channels that have recently opened shop regularly feature debates on the subject. Online petitions protesting censorship are common, an early example being one in support of "War and Peace," a documentary that was initially banned for criticizing India's 1998 nuclear tests. Earlier this year, government instructions to ban 16 -- mostly innocuous -- Web sites without giving any reasons provoked widespread outrage, especially after local Internet providers overreacted and mistakenly extended the ban to cover a large number of other sites. Bloggers across India filed applications under the Right to Information Act in an effort to discover the reasons for the ban, and some now plan to go to court to continue the battle for freedom of speech.
Such voices are still few, and these protests not yet loud enough to counter the regressive forces that routinely stifle freedom of expression in India. But they are growing, and offer hope for India's future.
Mr. Varma is based in Mumbai and writes India Uncut, a blog (
http://www.indiauncut.com).
印度对文化领域大兴审查制度
美国歌坛偶像帕丽斯?希尔顿(Paris Hilton)会腐化印度人的心灵。至少，印度文化精英们担心会这样。于是，他们禁止电视台播放希尔顿的最新音碟《星光迷梦》(Stars Are Blind)。而这是这个国家在文化领域大兴审查制度的又一范例。
孟买有几家电影频道最近被封，起因据称是因为他们播放成人节目。事实上这些频道在编辑节目时通常会删除所有暴露镜头和与性有关的内容。而就在几个月之前，由于天主教团体的抗议，电影《达芬奇的密码》(The Da Vinci Code)也在印度的几个邦被禁演。
在这种氛围之下，任何小小的举动都不会逃过检查官的火眼金睛。竭力鼓吹对电视台加强控制的纳萨尼(Pratibha Naithani)甚至呼吁对电视台“动画频道里的暴力内容”进行调查。为什么只停留在暴力话题呢？或许纳萨尼还没有注意到以下细节：《猫和老鼠》里每天追追打打、搞得到处天翻地覆的Tom猫和Jerry老鼠嬉戏的时候还是光着身子的呢。
自从印度1991年向外部世界开放经济以来，外来文化的影响也逐渐渗入这个国家，上面这些极端的例子正是该国对这些影响的一种反应。不出所料，这引发了保守主义者的强烈反应，他们的认同感和政治基础受到了威胁。为摆脱这种威胁，这些人士主张应保护印度的宗教、文化和传统不受全球化潮流的损害。
印度宪法并不保护公民免受审查，这一点与美国不同。虽然印度宪法规定所有公民享有自由表达言论的权利，但在太多的例外情况之下，这种保护变得基本毫无意义。有关印度主权完整、国家安全、与其他国家的友好关系、公共秩序、行为准则或道德的情况，或者出现蔑视法庭、诽谤或诱使犯罪的行为，通常都会被列为例外情况。
当然，哪些情况可以归入例外将由政府官僚决定。问题是，印度长期以来就存在这样一种风气，大家认为由政府决定公众可以看什么、听什么是一件完全可以接受的事。
比如，1968年的时候，有部分场景在孟买红灯区拍摄的电影“A Tale of Four Cities”因为出现了非常暴露的“超短裙”和“有勾引暗示”的镜头而被起诉到最高法院。法院不失时机地支持禁演，为此类审查制度开了先河，这一案例直到今天仍不时被引用。法院裁定对电影的审查必须更谨慎，因为看书或其他书面内容、听演说或看油画、雕塑等受到的思想干扰都不会像看电影这么深入。在法院看来，印度人就像是那些强势媒体手里的灰泥，会任由它们揉捏，他们自己没有任何分辨力或作决定的能力。
这种包办一切的思想与印度之前已很接受的费边主义非常契合。这种思想主张国家在所有事务上都拥有最高决定权，给予公民（或者用术语来说就是“主体”）什么样的自由要由国家决定。在印度，我们把这种现象称为“mai-baap sarkar”，意思是包办一切的“家长式政府”。
早期的时候，大多数印度人认为这一切理所当然，很少提出抗议。在印度独立运动的初期，政治自由对他们更重要，这给他们带来了国家自豪感。
但是近年来，情况已开始有所变化。开放带来的经济增长催生了大量中产阶级。同时，从世界其他地方流入印度的信息让中产阶级对自由表达的需求有了更深的感受。
这意味着，近来日益加强的审查制度不会不战而胜。那些以前人们认为理应实行审查制度的领域现在正在对这个制度发起讨论，近年开通的新闻频道也经常就这个话题组织讨论。
网上发起的抗议审查制度的呼吁也很常见，其中较早的一个例子是支持纪录片《战争与和平》(War and Peace)的活动，这部片子因为批评印度1998年的核试验而被政府禁演。
今年早些时候，政府查封了16家无伤大雅的网站，且没有给出任何原由，这一事件在公众中间引发了不满，各地网络供应商还矫枉过正地将禁令延伸到大量其他网站，这更让公众恼火。
印度博客写手们根据《信息权利法案》(Right of Information Act)提交申请，希望得到查封网站的真正理由，现在，一些人还计划将此事诉诸法庭，为言论自由而战。
这样的声音还不多，而且这些抗议的声浪还不够高，不足以盖过压制言论自由的退步势力。但是，这声音毕竟越来越高亢，它们给印度的未来带来了希望。
（本文作者Amit Varma 现居孟买，他在博客网站
http://www.indiauncut.com辟有专栏India Uncut）
