How to be a fringe element: The Vishwaroopam controversy

I thought people who went against the tide of prevalent thought are fringe elements. Now, from what we see around us, those who can manage to find a herd and sponsors for their ideology are called fringe elements (FE).

There have been times I have been critiqued for not saying politically-correct things; some have even implied that I “like” doing it, without fathoming the immensity of what might be (and indeed have been) the consequences.  But, it’s been a lone hunter (LH) sort of thing.  LH is vastly different from FE, and it surprises me. The outsiders should be the real FE, inhabiting that lonely mofussil space. That’s not how it happens.

The loonies, fundos, rightwingers, bigots have taken over the territory. Now, if you happen to stroll at the edge as LH there is every possibility that you might be mistaken for an FE.

Everyone is screaming out about the fringe elements once again in the mainstream media. TV panels point fingers at them. It is with some befuddlement that I watch how they are by default being transformed into some sort of maverick, almost out of Camus. The latest reason is the film Vishwaroopam that has been banned in Tamil Nadu. It talks about terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism. Its producer, director, actor Kamal Haasan, who “hawked” his house and “pawned” all his properties for this ambitious Rs. 100 crore project, is being held to ransom by the FE.

They are a bunch of Muslims whose religious sentiments are “hurt”. (Interestingly, Kamal Haasan has himself spoken about being “hurt” by what is happening, and now I am confused about this whole LH-FE business of being hurt.)  The film is doing fine in other South states.  It is Tamil Nadu that decided to ban it. I have not watched the film; the FE have probably not; most of those supporting the FE as well as the filmmaker have not.

This brings us to FoS. Freedom of Speech. Nothing in this episode is about freedom. I believe that a film that deals with a certain kind of terrorism might use its ‘inspiration’; it cannot exist in a vacuum. However, this is not about Islam. No one can make a definitive film on any religion, simply because there are just so many ways of interpreting it, and there will be provision for poetic licence. The FE use it, too.   
Here’s a quick manual on how to be one; as the reference is to the current controversy it will be restricted to Muslims:

• Look at pictures of beard/skullcaps/veils.
• Call friends on devices that they say the religion forbids. Gather in a herd.
• Find helpful sponsors to make and put up posters, effigies, shout slogans.
• Hide all glossy magazines in possession and bring out the Holy Book; play CDs with naats on the way to FE arena.
• Express anger, but talk of hurt (in psychology they call is S&M).
• There is 99 per cent of a possibility that some political group will understand your ‘sentiments’.
• Leave options open.
• The fire will be kept alive even when you are not around.
• Go home to watch yourself on TV. Realise you need to get the look right. Dishevel beard, wear a better cap.
• Set out to battle again. Anger. Hurt.

The Quit India Boo-ment

The biggest mistake people make is to legitimise the FE. If the case is in court, how does the media discuss it? Can the filmmaker give a press conference? Even before the verdict, Kamal Haasan said:

"Now, I shall wait for the afternoon judgement. But add to this, I think I will have to seek a secular state for me to stay in. And that choice would be a place where it would be a secular state. If I can't find it within India, I will hopefully find another country, which is secular that might take me in. M F Husain had to do it, and now Hassan will do it.”

MF, for all his flaws – and I absolutely disagreed with him for taking up the Qatar citizenship – did not have a work banned. His museum was burned down; he was threatened. These were not fringe elements, but members of a political party.

As regards leaving the state or the country for a secular haven, that is how the fringe elements credo thinks. They use emotional blackmail. They too question secularism. It is really turning out to be a wheels-within-wheels scenario.

In terms of the majority of the population, and I mean crossing any specific boundaries, Kamal Haasan is also a fringe element. He is not a common man. He interprets reality. However, he has the intellect, and the statement he made might sound like treason, if we choose to rationalise it.

Incidentally, this is not the first time anyone has spoken about leaving due to pressure. When the Shiv Sena sent its men wearing knickers to protest outside actor Dilip Kumar’s house, he said he would leave the city. Singer Lata Mangeshkar threatened to do so if a flyover was built near her house, because the pollution would affect her voice.

We will not talk about those who are forced to quit because they can’t find livelihood or due to persecution for reasons ranging from their beliefs to their gender to their sexual choices to their freedom to just be what they want to be.

In a statement he had issued, Haasan had written:

“I have been ruthlessly used as a vehicle by small groups who seek political profile. Icon bashing is a great way to be noticed when you are not one yourself. It is happening again and again. Any neutral and patriotic Muslim will surely feel pride on seeing my film. It was designed for that purpose.”

He is right about people joining a bandwagon. However, why does he need to emphasise “neutral and patriotic Muslim”? The terminology is all wrong. You can be a patriotic Indian, and it means your religion is not part of it. There can be no neutrality when judging any aspect, least of all a work of art. Has he made the film as a neutral and patriotic Hindu? No. And one would be disappointed if he did. He should create what he wants to, assuming that a sense of responsibility towards anything is inbuilt in the creative gene.

After his “I’ll leave”, he has agreed to make changes in the film and “move on”. It raises some fundamental questions which some of us would not have considered, given that I support him against the FE.

• Is he compromising because of these elements?
• Is there political pressure?
• Has he, in fact, seen his own film in a new light and found certain incendiary portions?
• Is he concerned about the money he will lose? (He said he does not care.)
• Has he let down those who stood by him only to please a handful of his “Muslim brothers”?

I am hurt because he has caved in and because of his preemptive implication that if some people who are not the lumpen were to later object to parts of the film their neutrality and patriotism could be questioned.

It bothers me that the fringe elements as well as the filmmaker are playing with the sensibilities and intelligence of many of us.

In saying so, I realise that in spirit some of us are more on the fringe than both, the streetfighters and the filmmaker, for not being backed or backing out.

End Note:

Imagine if a hardliner were to ask the director to make changes and it would include his name. Kamal means lotus and is the BJP symbol and Haasan, which is spelt as Hassan sometimes, is a Muslim name.

(c) Farzana Versey