Many would have not watched Nirbhaya film but for the hype

There has been a very vocal opposition to the telecast or any other form of exhibition of the film India’s Daughter directed by leslee Udwin. The statement in Parliament by the Home Minister and the concurrent steps to ban the screening of the film disclosed symptoms of overreaction and to a great extent, they subserved the objects of commerce and publicity that the film required. Despite all the efforts, the BBC telecast the film, which is also available on the internet.

The film involves two important aspects: the first being the right to privacy and dignity of Nirbhaya, and the second is the right to freedom of expression of the makers of the film. Disclosing the identity of the victim is definitely an unauthorised intrusion into the right to privacy and dignity of Nirbhaya, who is no more with us. To some extent, the film is centred around the rapists and the publicity campaign has unnecessarily highlighted the titillating bits of the interview. Apart from interviewing the rapist, whose appeal is pending in the Supreme Court, the film also interviews leila Seth and Gopal Subramaniam, the two surviving members of the Justice JS Verma Committee, which revisited India’s rape laws after the shocking incident relating to Nirbhaya.

\\

The film also interviews Nirbhaya’s parents and, in the process, discloses their identity along with  that of Nirbhaya. The identity of the juvenile has not been disclosed, whereas that of Nirbhaya has not been protected. The interviews with the defence lawyers Ml Sharma and AP Singh are disturbing and expose the tendentious and skewed views, which cannot stand the test of professional ethics. These are some of the aberrations that the film throws up.

looked at in its entirety, the controversial documentary could neither be termed vulgar, violative of canons of morality or of glorifying rape. In essence, it is a great tribute to the indomitable courage of Nirbhaya and to the demonstrative public outcries that followed the unfortunate incident.

It is Nirbhaya and not the rapist, whose overwhelming presence is felt in the different facets of the film. The film has made all efforts in tracking down almost all the persons linked with the tragedy and has painstakingly woven out the events that are bound to enrage the collective conscience of the society.

The kneejerk reaction of banning the film or any other form of screening of the film indirectly subserves the promotional and commercial interests of the filmmakers. If one evaluates the film on the touchstone of freedom of expression, there is an inevitable feeling of overreaction and there are counterproductive results of banning the film. left to itself, the film would not have gathered so much of publicity and momentum. However, thanks to the oversensitive reactions of the Government and a section of our society, the film has received a kick-start with wide publicity, whereas the avowed object was to ban it. The film does not per se attract any of the reasonable restrictions under the Constitution of India that would justify the banning of the film. Maybe, but for the ban order, a lesser number of individuals would have viewed this film through the BBC or through the internet. This incident also demonstrates that given the prevalent level of technology, the banning of a film would hardly be purposively feasible. The apparatus of the Union of India is not capable of preventing the screening throughout the world in view of the availability of many modes of dissemination beyond its control. The public demonstrations and outcry that followed the unfortunate Nirbhaya incident have been projected in a meaningful manner.

This is not the first time that the Governmental machinery has embarked upon banning a film or a book, but an exercise of this nature tends to push the dirt under the carpet instead of the society frontally facing the ugliness and aberrations with the object of finding suitable solutions.

*The Nirbhaya incident has not prevented future cases of rape. In the tribal areas of Odisha, within the last two to three months, there have been shocking incidents of teenage girls from backward communities in State-run schools giving birth to children. Strangely enough, the principals and other functionaries of these institutions claimed that they had no knowledge of these events as the girls had not revealed anything to them. Ironically, such incidents continue to repeat themselves and, at the same time, there are overzealous efforts to ban a documentary film dealing with the problem. There is apparently no change in the mindset of the people for protecting the dignity and welfare of women in general. We continue to treat women not with due respect as sisters and mothers but as objects of prey and physical exploitation. This malady requires a deep-seated social reform in reconditioning social attitudes, especially in the domain of gender equality. Intolerance of successful women in handling affairs of the society is also a contributing factor. One of the ways of remedying the evils is to have more and more women in important and pivotal roles in the society, instead of confining them to insignificant roles in different professions hitherto dominated by men.

*Alongside, we have the unusual situation of a growing controversy over the disclosure of personal e-mails of Hilary Clinton in discharging her functioning as the US Secretary of State. Disclosures per se do not provide an adequate justification for shutting out or preventing the disclosures. This is all the more relevant in the context of a documentary film. As a nation, we need not have been troubled and irked, so much as to cause an overnight banning of the Nirbhaya documentary. Many would have chosen not to watch the film had it not been a subject matter of so much of media hype and thereby showering so much of undeserved publicity of a matter of sensitivity and perceptions, which are conditioned by the eyes and minds of the viewers. As a nation, our firefighting exercises may have unwittingly caused immense harm to the memory and cause of Nirbhaya. Emotions very often ignore rationality. Rationality is not always the virtue of the majority.

The nation was caught within the two horns of this dilemma. We had hardly any time to seriously consider the matter and come to a reasoned conclusion subserving the needs of Nirbhaya and the cause of prevention of ugly incidents like rape. These definitely call for quiet and honest introspection and some amount of loud thinking. We lost the golden opportunity of having a free and frank public debate on all the related issues. Emotive outbursts overtook our rational faculty. Our Government banned a documentary that most of the world could watch despite the ban. The question that looms large before us is: Did we, as a nation, act responsibly and meaningfullyIJ We cannot avoid or evade the issue that confronts us. The world’s largest democracy has to demonstrate its inner strength by resolute action to change the prevalent disturbing and distorted scenario. And this certainly concerns us all!

(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of the Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)