Free Speech Row: Misplaced Impartiality of a Media That Equates Ranaut and Vir Das

There’s nothing more odious than a cloying, righteous media rushing in every time to prove it is impartial, fair and objective when a controversy erupts. And, of course, it is not the kooky conservative Hindutva anchors on television networks here, but it is an affliction that seizes the so-called liberal clubbies. 

And so, yet again, the clubbies have rushed in even as Kangana Ranaut’s “bheek” or charity Independence movement utterances barely began to subside, and comedian Vir Das’ “Two Indias” video went viral and hit the controversy pop charts.  

In an instant, liberal primetime television anchors leapt up in a bizarrely synchronised togetherness to ask the same question on their programmes about both Ranaut and Das -- about free speech and its limits, intellectual biases and intolerance, selective outrage, and worse, clubbing them together as if both were in the same boat. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Let’s see how a false equivalence is sneakily brought in to show that free speech issues affect both stars the same way, and, surprisingly, this comes from not greenhorn amateurs but seasoned star anchors, and let me name a few. 

This is not to say that Ranaut and Das must be booked for sedition, but it certainly begs the question - what’s the urgency to club both stars together in the free speech debate when their utterances are entirely different? 

I spoke to a few legal eagles to get a legal perspective. 

How did it all begin? Bollywood actor Ranaut has been taking a strident stand to show her undying loyalty to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and, of course, Home Minister Amit Shah. The most recent declaration of her devotion was when she said at a Times Now event that “in 1947, it was not freedom but alms or charity,” and that “real freedom came only in 2014.” Since she referred to 1947, we assume the reference was to the independence from a century or more of British rule.  

All hell broke loose, and Ranaut was castigated for being disrespectful and undermining the sacrifices and martyrdom of the freedom fighters and calls for her arrest exploded from law students to politicians demanding her arrest under the law of sedition and for provoking breach of peace, and public mischief. 

A few days later, comedian Vir Das uploaded a  satirical video of his performance ‘I come from Two Indias” at the John F Kennedy Centre in Washington DC, where he talks about the duplicity of public life and the two-faced nature of people and politicians, covering topics from farmers’ protests to gang rape. Typically, it set off a frenzied hysteria amongst ultra-nationalists (read Modi fanatics), and cries for Das’ arrest for sedition, tarnishing India’s image in a foreign land etc., overcame social media and in public. Das’ satire was treated as a threat to the country and its democracy. 

Now, this is where the problem begins – how did the star anchors deal with the issue?  

Journalist Faye D’souza, who was nudged out of Mirror Now for her righteous torrent on current news, began her sermon on her YouTube channel with her defence of free speech – how every citizen has the fundamental right to free speech and expression of their opinion, that we can disagree with them even if they are wrong etc. and popped the question to her panel: Is it fair then for all these people to file FIRs against the offenders? 

Classic mixing up issues without even bothering to point out there s a difference between the two which we will see below. 

Rajdeep Sardesai on India Today TV invited Lib fave, the eloquent TMC MP Mahua Moitra, and went purple in the face demanding why libs were supporting Das but not Kangana. Are we intolerant of anyone who offers a different view from ours etc. “Kangana Ranaut’s views may not match yours; she also gets targeted, cases are being filed against her. Where are the Mahua Moitras of the world,” he yelled. 

In response, Moitra touched the first crucial issue when she threw the challenge and asked anyone who could pick anything in Das’video which was “factually incorrect.” She then said that she would defend every right-thinking Indian but not “nutters”. 

Sardesai’s programme is tagged as ‘News without the Noise’, and it seems only Sardesai is allowed to make the most noise.

Rahul Shivshankar of Times Now had no pretensions of going deeper and baldly asked if there was an overreaction to Ranaut, and Das being called anti-India. Shivshankar went straight to his panel and demanded to know whose side are they on in the freedom of expression tangle. 

Navika Kumar, on the same channel, made no bones on which side she was on when she tut-tutted like a disgusted aunt who has caught her wards doing wrong, then rolled her eyes and admonished her viewers, saying there was a ‘laxman rekha’ where reasonable restrictions must not be crossed, that there was a thin line between creative freedom and maligning one’s country. Of course, the screen is leaping with hashtags #The Lobby, meaning the Libs, Ranaut is a BJP stooge, but Vir’s satire is creativity. “This hypocrisy is a joke,” she said with theatrical disgust, mixing up the issues of Ranaut and Das like her anchor colleagues yet again. 

So, where’s the subterfuge and the ploy here, you ask?  

For starters, there’s documentation, corroboration, testimonials, verification about the events that led to India’s independence movement. As mentioned above, since Ranaut referenced 1947, she was obviously referring to independence from more than a century or more of colonial rule. It is here that she fails to distinguish fact from fiction.  Even Bhaktas will agree that in 1947, there was a transfer of power from Britain to India, and that is what the freedom movement means and refers to. In 1950, we got our own Constitution, a fact that Bhaktas will not deny. This transfer of power is a fact and no one can dispute it.  So, Ranaut’s statements are not an opinion, she is factually wrong.  

It’s what we call fake news, but this fake news has not a chance to be passed of as a fact.  Lets‘s look at it this way - if Kangana had referred not to 2014 and Modi but any other person,  and if the BJP was hostile to Kangana, they would certainly have accused her of misrepresenting facts, and therefore, questioning the sovereignty and integrity of India.  

For instance, Section 124 A on sedition reads as, ‘whoever, by words, either spoken or written... brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt... to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished…” The sedition law was further strengthened by adding two expressions — “friendly relations with foreign state” and “public order” — as grounds for imposing “reasonable restrictions” on free speech. 

After all, the government was established by law when the Constitution came into force. Would they have prosecuted her to sedition as they have been doing with the fact finders in Tripura for spreading “ fake news” ? They may well have done that given that the sedition law is so misused in their hands.

In the case of Vir Das, the comedian cannot be charged with any criminal activity as his speech was an opinion, and he’s entitled to any opinion, even if disagreeable. To hold an opinion, even if it be disapproving of the political policies of the government, is not an offence but part of the fundamental right to dissent. There is no crime known as defamation of India.  

Das is entitled to his opinion as long as he does not instigate violence. Similarly, neither can he be hauled up for the accusation of defaming India as it is an opinion. What you cannot do according to the Sedition law and the dreaded Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is to create violence in the country. Unfortunately, both the laws have been abused for a harmless activity like criticising the prime minister, praising Pakistan or questioning mob lynchings. 

Limits on freedon of speech are not unknown all over the world. An example is Germany’s law which bans the valourising of Nazism. It is not protected under the freedom of speech law because Nazism is targeted against specific communities with the intention to cause harm and hurt. 

In the same vein, Vir Das cannot be hauled up for causing harm and hurt; though the BJP government can use it, it will not stand up to scrutiny as the courts will say it’s an abuse of law.  

Going back to the German law then one cannot say Hindutva can be protected under the Free speech law? Lawyers agree Hindutva can be protected under law if they propagate about, say, Muslim appeasement, as it is an opinion. 

However, if Hindutva advocates murderous violence against communities, like “Goli maro saalon ko,” it is an act of violence and not an opinion. In our country, though, the process is the punishment. 

So, Vir Das is not saying I want India destroyed or go and bash up Hindus. On the other hand, Ranaut seems to be questioning the integrity of India’s independence itself! Vir Das is merely expressing an opinion about the current political situation in the country as he sees it. 

So, can journalists please refrain from this false equivalence to come out looking squeaky clean and neat?

The writer is an independent journalist. The views are personal.