Censorship of foreign ideas

By Rajeev Dhavan

CENSORSHIP OF the flow of ideas from and into India is not new. Two years ago, the Union of India pressured the World Commission on Dams not to hold its meetings in the Narmada Valley. The flow of written and audio-visual material is regulated by the Customs Act. Most of the customs bans are political, insidious or plainly ridiculous. Why Nehru's photograph in imperial robes on horseback was prohibited from export defeats ingenuity? Book bans are well known. The ban on Salman Rushdie ``Satanic Verses'', without giving him or his reader a chance to be heard, set off a chain reaction throughout the world. Bans by vicious demonstration are on the increase. Deepa Mehta has suffered humiliation by ``fire'' and ``water''. The latest in this genre of ``hooligan'' censorship is the violent picketing of the film ``Gadar''. Indian society has to re-work its attitude to ``hate speech''. The free expression of ideas does not come to an end simply because some disgruntled person, group or, for that matter political party or Government, may not like it. Unfortunately, many of the incidents of social censorship are fanned by an irresponsibly politically motivated fundamentalism. But censorship does not take place by the direct imposition of bans but by various subtle methods. Till the 1990s, the Government had dominant control of the electronic media. Now, all that has changed. But, the present Government and its mob support want to control the processes of the creation of ideas as well as their exchange and circulation. The success of the Ramayana and Mahabharata serials has emboldened these efforts. The plan to propagate certain kinds of courses and text books exemplify the initiative to focus on the process and content of thinking itself. This is animated by a professed political glorification of a skewed version of the past; and perforce a xenophobia about foreign ideas and the global market place of ideas.

India runs the risk of becoming an intolerant and closed society in which the free exchange of ideas is inhibited by excessive Government regulation; and, perforce, mobs. The latest in this run of intolerance is the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Home Affairs of September 1, 2000, which has only now surfaced for focussed attention and implementation. This memorandum declares ``revised guidelines'' concerning security clearance for holding international conferences, workshops, etc., in India. ``Guidelines'' are menacing declarations of policy not unknown to the law - no less for their ambiguous legal status. If addressed to officials, they are simply ``standards'' which have to be taken into account. But, if beneficial and addressed to the public, they may even create legitimate expectations for persons who act on the promises contained in them. But, regulatory guidelines - especially those laying tough policies - revel in the ambiguity of their status. No doubt, the powers to make orders under the Foreigners Act, 1946, widely cover ``mak(ing) provision either generally or with respect to all foreigners or with respect of any particular foreigner or any prescribed class of description of foreigner for prohibiting, regulating, or restricting entry of foreigners into India or their departure... or their presence continued presence...''. But, a ``guideline'' evades accountability. It is not an `order' under the Act, but it is not also purely recommendatory. Such guidelines are the bane of administrative law. If they are non-statutory, the Punjab Text Book case (1955) declares that they cannot affect peoples' rights generally, including their fundamental rights. If they are statutory, they are neither fish nor fowl - but no less menacing in their intent or effect. A bold university to whom these orders are addressed may well turn round to remonstrate that they are illegal, cannot affect peoples' rights and are contrary to the Act and the Constitution.

But, the order itself revels in incongruities. It covers clearances for ``conferences, seminars, workshops, etc., in the country.'' There is a sting to the ``etc.'' which could be taken to mean any and everything. The ``guidelines'' are broadly divided into (A) conferences that do not require prior clearance and (B and C) those that do. Category A includes those conferences organised by the Union and State Governments, public sector undertakings and organisations owned and controlled by these Governments and U.N. agencies. But, Category A also excludes from prior permission conferences ``organised by NGOs with or without the official sponsorship'' of any Union or State Ministry. But, this is curious. Who remains if we exclude NGOs and the Government? What are left are intellectuals, universities, research institutes not controlled by the Government, the media, commercial organisations and federations including chambers of commerce. This exclusion list is strange. A self-styled NGO can invite scholars in exchange, but not non- state universities, autonomous colleges and others. Prior clearance is directed against exchanges by the academy, universities, intellectuals, scholars and business groups - if not NGOs. These are the very people who should be trusted with the exchange of people unless we live in a ``Macarthy'' era in which such minds are targeted for harassment.

The Memorandum gets worse. Categories B and C mandate prior clearance for conferences on political, semi-political, communal or religious related subjects, matters having a ``bearing on external relations'' or on areas covered under protected, restricted, inner line regimes, and all matters related to human rights. What is left? Apart from areas of pure science, these categories cover virtually everything; and, certainly the most important matters which merit exchange.

But, the Memorandum goes further to include an ``anti- neighbourhood country'' clause. Prior approval is needed to confer with any participant from Afghanistan, China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh irrespective of the subject matter of the exchange. This is a blanket control. People can be invited from anywhere in the world from Japan to Hawai but not our neighbours. Every academic or person from these countries would have to be vetted. These are not simple visa provisions. Visas may be denied for disclosed or undisclosed reasons. These measures are purely and simply exercises in pre-censorship. They are intended to prevent the free flow of ideas. A new license-raj of conference by license and exchange of only permitted and approved ideas has been created.

All this is an attempt by Mr. L. K. Advani's Home Ministry to call the shots and exercise control and pressure over those who are critical of his party's policies. It will result in a direct and inevitable control over a large number of Indian and foreign scholars. But, this Memorandum is also an exercise in espionage. Prior permission will enable the Home Ministry to amass a list of ``foreign'' scholars and others who have contacts with Indian counterparts. This will enable the Home Office to create a profile of who knows what, whom and why? Those who apply for `foreign participants' will themselves be under scrutiny. The ``foreign'' participants invited will run the risk of the humiliation of refusal and then enter a ``black book'' of suspects and undesirables. The ``anti- neighbourhood'' clause will only create bitterness.

But, all this may be part of the Home Office's plan to increase its hegemony. Recently, many mindless decisions have been taken in respect of refugees and people from Afghanistan, West Asia and Muslim Africa. For example, the recent statement to strongly implement the Foreigners (Report to Police) Order, 1971, required Indians to report the presence of any foreigner anywhere on pain of possibly five years imprisonment. This has been temporarily put in abeyance. But, it reveals the mind of a Ministry to harass foreigners and those who know foreigners.

The end result of the Home Ministry's policies and posture is to create a censorship of ideas, people and relationships to harass the very people who are deeply concerned about India and the world.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Whose truce is it in West Asia?
Next     : Putin on the defensive