The ‘heckler veto’ seems to be winning again and again against stand-up comedian Munawwar Farooqui. Bengaluru joins the list of cities in which Mr Farooqui cannot perform Because right-wing Hindutva groups regularly threaten to disrupt their shows, wherever they are scheduled to be held. Bengaluru city police asked the organizers to call off a show on November 28, alleging that letting it run would create law and order problems and disrupt peace and harmony. Mr Farooqui was unjust arrested in Indore In January, the son of a BJP functionary had complained that he was about to defame Hindu deities in a planned show. He had to spend 37 days in jail before this getting bail from supreme court As for the comment that was not made in the show that did not happen. This is the case in which the police also arrested the local organizers and ticket sellers of the show and they had nothing to do with the content of the performance, citing apprehensions about the consequences of allowing the show. is expressed. to be held. Earlier, programs in which she was supposed to perform in Raipur, Mumbai, Surat, Ahmedabad and Vadodara were canceled for the same reason. It is a clear commentary on the state of freedom of expression in the country that anyone anywhere can be silenced by threats made by violent and vocal groups, which no regime in the country seems to be able to rein.
In a disappointing response, Mr. Farooqui has said, “Goodbye! Mera work done”, indicating that he has no more hope that he will be allowed to exercise his constitutional right to express himself. It reminds me of Tamil writer Perumal Murugan announces his own “death” After being silenced by conservative and religious groups in the literary sense. In Mr. Murugan’s case, he was fortunate that the Madras High Court revived the author in him with a provocative judgment that outlined the duty of the state to protect free speech and maintain law and order, not That to pacify those threatening to take the law. In his own hands. It is a pity that police officers advise writers, speakers and artists to remain silent instead of taking proactive steps to protect their fundamental rights. It is true that whenever such issues do go before a court of law, the resulting decisions are speech-protective, but the propensity of authorities to authoritarian groups is posing a serious threat to free expression in society. Supreme Court’s comment in s. Rangarajan Adi vs. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) that suppressing free speech in response to threats of demonstration or protest would “neglect the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation” that seems to be some of the takers of those in positions of power.
,