In Tamil Nadu, little has been done by politicians to preserve the creative freedom of an artist
In Tamil Nadu, where cinema serves as a medium of social and political propaganda, Kollywood has not been spared from periodic attacks by politicians and socio-cultural groups. a dispute has erupted Jai Bheem, which has grabbed worldwide attention by running to the top of the IMDb ratings, displacing the 1994 Hollywood classic The Shawshank Redemption, Praised for its amusing but fictionalized depiction of a real incident of police brutality, it has provoked some political, caste and right-wing organizations. He has accused this of “deliberate and wrong” portrayal of Vanniyar, a prominent most backward class community, and ‘Hinduisation’ of the film’s villain. The names of others involved in the true incident were fictitious in the film, except for a few key characters, which have been confiscated by critics to set fire to.
firing salvos
Vanniyar Sangam and his political off-shoot, Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), were troubled by the calendar dated 1995 on the wall of the house of villainous police officer ‘Gurumurthy’. The calendar had an image of ‘agni kundam’ (fire pot), a symbol used by their community. As soon as it was flagged off, the filmmakers replaced it with an image of a Hindu deity. But the matter is gaining momentum. PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss and Vanniyar Sangam president Pu Tha Arulmozhi argue that the villain was deliberately named Gurumurthy, in line with Vanniyar’s late leader ‘Kaduveti’ J. Represents Guru. Some BJP leaders and their associates claimed that the police officer, whose real name was Anthonysamy, “a Christian”, was deliberately given a Hindu name to show Hinduism in a bad light. Hence, a narrative that began as an insult to a Hindu community has since sought to be elevated as a pan-Hindu.
Actor and co-producer Suriya Sivakumar and director TJ Gyanvel have insisted that none of the scenes/names were intentional. Despite the threats, the actor refused to apologise. Instead, he urged Dr. Ramdas to recognize the importance of protecting freedom of expression and stay away from “name-politics”. Incidentally, Mr. Surya, a philanthropist for educational causes, is among the few Kollywood personalities who have openly expressed their opinion against certain policies of the central government.
This is not the only case. While former chief ministers, who hailed from the cine world, pampered Kollywood, they did little to preserve the creative freedom of an artist. In 1987, after the agitation, the state objected to the release of Ore Oru Gramathile, which advocated reservation purely on the basis of economic criteria. The Supreme Court, which approved the film, said: “Freedom of expression that is legitimate and constitutionally protected cannot be held for ransom by an intolerant group of people … we must practice tolerance for the views of others.” Intolerance is as dangerous for democracy as it is for the individual. Although the court made it clear that it was the duty of the state to stop any attempt to suppress freedom of expression, many films subsequently ran into trouble. Hollywood film, 2006, during the DMK regime the Da Vinci Code It was banned after objections from Christian groups. (The ban was quashed by the Madras High Court.) In 2013, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa not only imposed the ban Vishwaroopam After protests by Muslim organizations but justified it citing insufficient police manpower to provide security to theatres. It would not be unreasonable to recall what Justice Prabha Sridevan said in his speech the Da Vinci Code Case: “Such threats to freedom of artistic expression … [are] not healthy; To echo Justice Brandis, this trend would shake the stability of the state. ,
Sureshkumar.d@thehindu.co.in
,