The story is three days old and so already stale for news networks to give it any importance. What Abiash eat for breakfast gathers more interest in our country these days then what we are facing in Baroda. Similar instances have occurred in the recent past be it moral policing or rustication of students in Kerala and have been casually glossed over as normal and ‘every day’ occurrences.

A fascists rule is moving into place, brilliantly hidden under the garb of a secular constitution which has been randomly changed over a period of time to suit the perpetrators who continue what they call moral policing to uphold the ‘culture’ of India Shining.

Culture in its broadest sense is cultivated and accumulated experience that is socially transmitted, through history. And as artist practicing in a ‘secular’ country we constantly move to depict nuances of culture in our work, a step that Chandramohan like many artist before him considered a right. When the students of the Faculty of Fine Arts decide to showcase a few examples of ancient Indian art, which were a part of the archives at the institute the Vice Chancellor himself came and sealed the archives and stopped the exhibit. And whe the Dean of the Faculty objected to this intervention, he was suspended. An outright message to the free thinking mass of India that Fascism is here to stay. For the supposed torchbearers of our culture this move is a means to free publicity and political mileage. Art, culture and morality are just the glossy package they hide their crude and unreasonable shenanigans behind as they lead a ‘morally upright’ India into the 21st century.

I have attached a mail which was doing the rounds and throws some light on the legal constitutional policies under which these proceedings fall.

Dear All

This notice has details of the sections of the penal code under which Chandramohan is being charged - Sections 153A and 114, along with Section 295. I would urge everyone to pay attention especially to the wonderful alliance between VHP activists and Christian priests in Gujarat, against the freedom of expression of a student.

Further, here are some details about the relevant sections:

Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race etc, committing acts prejudicial to the harmony of the public.

According to the section whoever by words or expression promotes enmity between different groups of the country on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, or any such grounds or commits an act which is prejudicial to the harmony of he public is culpable under the section with imprisonment which may extend to three years with or without fine. Further, when the offence is committed on any religious place or any place worship the imprisonment can extend to 5 years with or without fine. The offence is non-bailable and even cognizable (after 1898) ie. Police can arrest a person under the section
without a warrant.

Section 295: Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class.

Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage nor defilement as a insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 295A: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 114 is about abetment and presence when any crime is being committed.

As a close reading of these sections would suggest, the problem lies not only with the act, but also with the idea of intention.

The problem is, Chandramohan's lawyers can at best argue that his actions are not evidence of his intentions. However, an artist is such only because his actions have deliberation. Thus, to save Chandramohan the person from a prison sentence, his lawyers might have to jettison Chandramohan's identity as an artist. Such an argument, given the circumstances that the images in question were made for an exam of the fine arts department, may be impossible, or at the very least, difficult to sustain.

The reason that distinguishes between the scrawls made by a chimpanzee and an abstract expressionist has to do with the idea of intention. To protect Chandramohan's act as an instance of un0 malicious behaviour, it has to be freed from the matrix of artistic intention. We cannot really quarrel about the purport of the intention, because the onus of proving hurt, has to do not with the hurter, but with the hurtee.

Hurt, is a subjective feeling, and as long as the hurt say that they feel their pain, we are in no position to debate whether their pain or humiliation is real or imagined. There cannot, in fact be, imagined or feigned pain, because a court is in no position to measure the intensity of feeling on any given issue. Thus when a person says that their religious sensibilities are hurt, a court has to listen, (if the injury to sensibilities is mentioned as a cause of harm). Chandramohan cannot say that he intended to cause pain. He can only say that he intended to cause meaning to be read into his actions. If someone says that they read meaning in his actions in a manner that caused them pain, there is very little that Chandramohan or his lawyers can say in defence against such a charge.

The only thing that can be debated is the question of whether or not there was 'intention' in the first place. As an artist, Chandramohan cannot run away from intention.

Therefore the only recourse that anyone wishing to protect the freedom of speech in this case is to subject the law itself to criticism, not to speculate about whether it's application in this case is an instance of its misreading.

This means arguing for a straightforward assault on sections 153 and 295. The only way that an artist or a writer's freedom of speech can be protected against religious zealots is through a complete and total repeal of sections 153 and 295.

Having said that, arguing for these provisions to be struck down also means accepting the right of the Hindutva forces to insult and (through speech acts, signs, and visual representations) humiliate and attack people of other religions and convictions.

I have no problem with that, but many who will rightly condemn the freedom of Chandramohan to act as he has done, will also call for bans on the 'hate speech' of those who have moved the machinery of law and order against him.

Let it be understood that to do that will only invite further assaults on the freedom of art students like Chandramohan in the future. Meanwhile, I would urge everyone to attend as many meetings and protests, as possible on this issue, and make people aware of the draconian nature of sections 153 and 295.

For any information or advice or anything else you can contact us on chandramohan.baroda@gmail.com