No, why don’t you speak up?

What happens when a film industry goes quiet, when its own profession is possibly being gagged? Representation pic

My favourite moment in the dystopian/futuristic show Ok Computer (Disney+Hotstar), set only in 2031, with Artificial Intelligence at loggerheads with humans, is when a robot, speaking of its tribe's diminishing rights, confesses: "Hamara morale itna gir gaya hai, ki hamara motto, ‘Satyamev Jayate' se ‘Satya nahin bhi jeetega toh chalega' ho gaya hai (Our motto has transformed from ‘truth alone triumphs' to ‘even if truth doesn't triumph, it's okay)." Talk of shifting goalposts!

When does a society reach such a stage? When the majority, but chiefly the socio-economic elite, with the privilege to effectively push back, marinate in guiltless/pragmatic apathy instead: "What goes my daddy's?"

Rather than collectively express even gentle disagreement, let alone strong public dissent, on stuff they don't approve of - such as lack of basic/universal values of free speech, equality, human rights, and the like.

Or so angry activists will tell you - remaining in their heads the sole repositories of noble intentions. Everybody else being either an opportunist/wuss, or a blatant/selfish a-hole.

Others also repeatedly bemoan the fact that (Indian) celebrities, from cinema and cricket in particular, with highest reach/influence/access, clamp up on important issues that concern a society that, in turn, rewards them so heavily for their art/talent. Why's that?

If you're getting a drink with the said angry activist still, very soon, from why don't they take a stand, it'll turn to: "Why don't you?" It's the equivalent to ‘whataboutery' from the other end, when you do speak up on issues that irk you more than others: "But where were you, when…" There's simply no end to this.

Regardless of the setting (even family or workplace, both of which can be quasi autocracies by the way), we do express dissent to the extent one can get away with it - eventually guided by the notion that the world is what it is. All we can seek from it therefore is perhaps mental peace and material happiness for ourselves - adjustment and acceptance being the consequent outcomes.

Satyajit Ray was once asked why he never participated in placard/protest marches. He said, "I find activism unaesthetic!" Could see his point - maybe activation's best left to professional activists, and commentary's up a commentator's alley.

Let's also agree with all the above, given art/film was Ray's primary field of expression. But what if that very art is at risk, as decreed by powers that be, who will then decide if it's okay to create/produce it?

That there is a government censorship in place for OTT platforms, which in effect is the film industry itself? Or that a tribunal, headed by a retired judge - serving as a minimal outlet from the Censor Board - has also been yanked off, so a film industry is left at the sole mercy of the government still?

If not the overburdened high court, that you must plead to, in the last minute before a picture's release - bleeding cash each time, for the lawyers/litigation involved? Exactly, what problem was being sought to be solved, this way?

Similar tribunals in specialised fields, from pharma, aviation to farming have also been repealed. That too, under extraordinary circumstances, without consultation with stakeholders - befitting an ordinance, with the parliament not in session, and the pandemic at its peak!

Specifically, why would an already super-sensitive state be so paranoid about movies? Unsure. Maybe because, unlike before, anybody can make one, and speak their own truth. The enabling technology has rendered it relatively easy.

What happens when a film industry goes quiet, when its own profession is possibly being gagged? Rare ones who do express displeasure merely on social media, forget a protest march, are perceived as activists instead.

I see why political parties in opposition hardly come to a collective defence either. Nobody rules forever. Assuming it's a democracy. The powers vested in one government passes on to another. Not true for movie censorship alone.

How else, despite multiple regimes since independence, do we still live with draconian vestiges/laws of the colonial empire (such as, say, ‘sedition')? Controlling impulse of the political class is inclusive/complete.

This leaves you, by yourself, hopelessly/helplessly wondering, say what, and why? What's in it for me? How does a solitary registering of sulking disagreement, over one thing or another, affect anything, anyway? Why be angry, or attract those from the opposite end, who perennially are?

Can't speak for every issue, since each holds complexities of their own. But some things are just black and white. You know it, when you see one. May not seem so, on the face of it, but state censorship is one of those, and therefore bears repetition.

What you can't eat and drink is not an F&B industry issue. Just as the government, that you elected, ulmately deciding what you can't watch, isn't a film industry problem.

That the latter goes comatose is self-censorship. Which is the end-goal of all censorship - whether intended/implemented, or not. Deed's done on a free pass. Fight another day for whatever's left, I guess. Ab ardhsatya-mev jayate bhi chalega!

Mayank Shekhar attempts to make sense of mass culture. He tweets @mayankw14.

Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper.