AIB has fuelled the free speech debate again
Actor Aamir Khan's critical comments on comedy group All India Bakchod's controversial roast have once again fired the free speech debate. The show, that featured film industry heavyweights and some of the country's best known comics, was held in December 2014 but ran into trouble after it was uploaded to YouTube in January and made available to a wider audience. Several organisations complained against the show for being rude and offensive. The Maharashtra Government got involved and even Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had to make a statement.
Notices were sent and licenses reviewed and, finally, after much hullaballoo, AIB removed the YouTube video. The situation snowballed after politicians and public officials, including a member of the censor board, joined the chorus against AIB, while celebrities, artistes and youngsters in general came out in support of the comedy group. But just when you thought that the battle lines had been clearly drawn, AIB rendered an unconditional apology to the Archdiocese of Bombay, a move that many of its supporters seemed as a betrayal of their principles. Others were miffed that AIB, while bowing before the pressures from one segment, maintained an adversarial position towards the rest. For now, it seems unlikely that the matter will make any more headlines but surely the issue of free speech will come up again.
At the crux of the debate is whether free speech should have some limitations; and if yes, who decides on those limitations and how. There are strong arguments on all sides. Free speech absolutists on the left believe this is a black-and-white situation — either you have absolute freedom (this includes, obviously, the full freedom to offend, with no holy cows whatsoever) or you have no freedom at all. They argue that from the moment you start imposing limitations on free speech, it's only a matter of time before the entire principle is compromised. On the other hand, on the extreme Right, there are those who are of the firm belief that certain topics — such as religion, country, culture, public icons and political leaders — should be off-limits.
In between, there are those who are uncomfortable with any official or legal restrictions on free speech but also expect humourists to work within certain social norms of decency. For example, they would rather that in a country like India, artists refrain from exhibiting paintings of religious figures in the nude. Yet another group is even more liberal with the idea of free speech and only draws the line against an invocation to violence. This group, for example, will defend the right of an artist to offend but also support the gagging of a rabble-rousing politician who is fomenting religious tensions through fiery communal speeches. In short, there are many shades to the free speech debate, and episodes such as the AIB roast or even that of Charlie Hebdo compel us, as a society, to work with those different hues and colours.