The ongoing controversy over whether to ban pornography as
a social menace or treat it as a matter of liberated sexuality, individual
choice and freedom of expression, is being carried out as though the issue has
cropped up for the first time in India because we have a supposedly “right
wing” BJP government at the helm of affairs.
Even senior journalists who should know better choose to
ignore that not too long ago, the anti-obscenity provisions in the British-enacted
Indian Penal Code were made more stringent in 1986 with full cooperation of the
mainstream media. This happened because a shrill campaign was launched by
feminist groups to force the government to enact a new law to declare “obscene
portrayal of women” in the media a criminal offence punishable with a minimum
two-year jail term plus monetary fine.
Protests against the use of women as sex objects in the
media, including advertising had already been raised on a much larger scale by
the feminist movements in North America and Europe because that is from where
this disease emanated.
At that time, mainstream media lent full support to
feminist activists who went around defacing with black paint what were termed
as “sexy” hoardings. These included
pictures of buxom women being used to sell car tyres, or intimate pictures of
couples to sell cigarettes. Some
feminists even took to protesting outside cinema halls demanding ban on movies
with hot and lurid scenes or an excess of body display of women. This was the day and age when respectable
films did not even show a regular kissing scene and instead used suggestive
symbols to communicate sexual attraction. In those days only soft porn would be
shown in a low key manner in the morning shows of regular cinema halls. These
protests never witnessed mass participation and they remained confined to a
handful of women for each such occasion. But they got massive traction in the
media—often front page coverage with a big photograph of the protest event.
The questions being raised were valid: Why do advertisers
have to use women’s bodies in sexually provocative ways to sell sundry products
from male undergarments, wall paint to cigarettes and soap? In fact even I had
written several articles and film reviews critiquing the negative portrayal of
women in the mass media.
Even though the protests in India were sporadic and tiny,
yet these mini protests, small meetings and workshops against women’s portrayal
in the media organized during that phase grabbed media attention because the
few NGOs who took it up were backed by powerful western donor agencies, out to
proselytize Indian women to adopt feminism as their intellectual prop. By the
late 1970s, western donor agencies had begun funding feminist studies and
feminist activism in India. The most
notable among them was the Ford Foundation which came to influence the agenda
of newly emerging women’s organizations by providing them generous financial
and political support. Therefore, condemning “obscene portrayal of women” in
the Indian media came to be seen as a “progressive” move and hence
enthusiastically supported by those who saw themselves as pro-women, including
leftists in the Indian media.
What better way for feminist NGOs to justify receiving
huge grants from western donor agencies than to browbeat and guilt-trap MPs
into enacting all-India legislation to outlaw obscene portrayal of women? Such was the hype created in favour of
banning obscenity that within no time, a Bill was presented in Parliament in
1986, and a new Act added to the statute book that very year: The Indecent
Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986.
From what I remember, there was zero debate in Parliament
on this Bill, nor any real opposition. As happens with most legislation
claiming to be pro-women, no one among the opposition parties bothered to even
read the law, leave alone subject it to careful scrutiny.
In any case, at this point in time, Rajiv Gandhi was the
prime minister of India with a brute majority of 485 in a house of 545. With “liberal” and “progressive” mainstream
media and leading feminists baying for this Bill, no one except two of us from Manushi (my colleague Ruth Vanita and I)
stood up to risk taking a politically unfashionable position against the Bill. Both
of us protested not because we favoured “obscenity” or “indecency” in the
portrayal of women but because the drafting of the law was both brainless and
impractical.
An article entitled “Using Women as a Pretext for Repression”
that I co-authored with Ruth Vanita explained our position and warned of the
potential dangers of that high handed law while it was still in the form of a
Bill before Parliament. (See Manushi issue No 47 of 1986 http://manushi.in/docs/882.%20Law-Using%20Women%20As%20aPretext%20for%20Repression%20-37.pdf)
Needless to say, in that heady atmosphere, our voices of
caution against the proposed law were ignored. Feminists hadn’t yet discovered
the word “moral policing”. Instead they wanted the State to appoint them as
“moral police’.
“Obscenity” as per the Indian Panel Code
Why did we consider that law ill-conceived? To begin with,
the definition of obscenity was borrowed straight from the British-enacted
Victorian-minded Indian Penal Code of 1860.
This is how Section 292 and 292A of IPC defines “obscenity”:
“a book,
pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any
other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to
the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more
distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole,
such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to
all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or
embodied in it.”
Needless to say, the definition is both arbitrary and
vague. It is left at the discretion of
police and courts to define what is “prurient” and therefore likely to “deprave”
and “corrupt” morals. In the eyes of Victorian administrators with their
prudish notions of sexuality, even the worship of Shivalinga representing the
act of procreation was depraved, not to speak of the erotic art of Konark and
Khajuraho temples with their open celebration of sexual union in all its
diverse forms. An epic like the Mahabharata, with numerous out-of-wedlock
children or god Krishna with 16,000 patranis and countless romantic
dalliances were all used as proof of the depravity of te Hindu culture and its
diverse faith traditions. Luckily, the British had the good sense not to bring
down those temples or ban our sacred epics.
In fact, recognizing the
inherent clash of cultural values between the Christian West and Hindu
civilization, the IPC made specific provisions to keep out of its purview, “any
representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in—(i)
any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958), or (ii) any temple, or
on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious
purpose”.
The punishment for the first time offence of producing or
distributing “obscene” material under the still alive and kicking IPC of 1860
vintage is imprisonment up to two years and a monetary fine up to Rs 2,000. In the event of a second or subsequent conviction,
the jail term can go up to five years with a fine of Rs 5,000.
Making Existing Law More Stringent
When feminist crusaders launched their campaign for a new
law, we tried reminding them that the IPC provisions against obscenity plus the
existing film censorship regime were more than adequate to deal with vulgar or
sexually gross portrayals of women in the media. Therefore, there really was no need for a new
law. Here is a summary of our reservations against the easy to abuse provisions
of that Bill as presented in our article “Using Women as a Pretext for
Repression”:
The definition of “indecent” in the 1986 law was a
mindless adaptation of the definition of “obscenity” in the IPC of 1860 with
new absurdities added to good effect. To
quote the exact provision of the Act:
“indecent representation of women” means the
depiction in any manner of the figure of a woman; her form or body or any part
thereof in such way as to have the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to,
or denigrating women, or is likely to deprave, corrupt or injure the public
morality or morals;
The punishment for a person “publishing or cause to be
published or take part in the publication or exhibition of any advertisement
which contains indecent representation of women in any form—book, pamphlet,
paper, slide, film, writing, drawing, painting, photograph, representation or
figure which contains indecent representation of women in any form” is the same
as in IPC: It invites imprisonment of up
to two years for first offence plus fine of up to Rs 2,000. Subsequent offences invite a jail term of up
to five years plus a fine of at least Rs 10,000 which may extend up to Rs 1
lakh.
The Act gave any Gazetted Officer authorized by the state
government to enter and search any premise where he suspects such an act is
being committed. He can also seize any
material he thinks is derogatory to women. Needless to say, this amounted to
adding to the enormous arbitrary powers of police and sundry government functionaries
to intimidate, harass and terrorize any citizen who they wished to extort money
from or settle personal scores with. The danger is especially serious since the
Act also lays down that under this Act, “no suit or legal proceeding shall be
permitted against the government or its officers” if they carried out raids and
got people arrested in “good faith”. This is clearly meant to protect officers
misusing the law for blackmail or extortion.
Such misuse is especially easy since the very definition
of what constitutes “indecent representation of women” is altogether vague,
overarching and lacking in specificity. There are plenty of people who consider
women without burka or ghoonghat indecent. For others a woman in
a skirt or a plunging neckline or the traditional backless blouse of Rajasthani
women is “indecent”. In the co-ed Delhi
University college I used to teach in, some leftist lecturers were in the habit
of nabbing students for “indecency” and threatening them with expulsion if they
found a girl and a boy holding hands or hugging each other in the privacy of
the college terrace. For some, the pelvic thrusts and sexually provocative
gestures that have become routine ingredient of every Bollywood film are
indecent while others balk only at explicit scenes of copulation. The
Victorian-minded British considered a novel like Lady Chatterley's Lover indecent.
It remained banned in England till 1960 and its author Lawrence was persecuted
and hounded all his life for his erotic writing. Today, Lawrence is celebrated as a writer of
great classics.
The absurdity of such an overarching definition becomes even
more glaring when the very same Act repeats verbatim the provision of the IPC
Section 292 that the law would not be invoked against any book, film, painting
etc whose publication or distribution is justified “in the interest of science,
literature, art or learning.” The exemption was meant as a safeguard against
nutty prudes, of which there is no dearth, who may want to ban school lessons
in physiology which include a description of the sex act and the process of
reproduction.
The Act also exempts materials that are kept or used for
bona fide religious purposes as also ancient monuments, temples, idols etc—exactly
as the IPC did. This too amounts to an open admission that there is much in our
religious literature, art, architecture and rituals etc which in the eyes of
many in the contemporary world amount to “indecent representation of women.”
We also warned the ban enthusiasts that the law could
easily become a pretext for political censorship. For instance, a detailed and graphic report I
had published on the gang rapes and other sexual atrocities on Sikh women
during the 1984 pogrom of Sikhs could well be dubbed "prurient" and
hence invite a ban as well as a jail term. (See article “Gangster Rule, The
Massacre of the Sikhs” http://www.manushi-india.org/pdfs_issues/articles/Gangster%20Rule.pdf)
That it was not a case of crying wolf was proven by the vindictive cases lodged
against The Illustrated Weekly editor Pritish Nandy when he published an
article exposing the sexploits of then chief minister of Orissa J.B. Pattnaik through
gross abuse of power. However, no action
had been taken against Nandy for routinely publishing features containing large
photographs of semi-nude women. Quite predictably, none of our warnings were
heeded and the new law came to be touted as a major feather in the cap of
feminist activism.
Feminist U-Turn on Obscene Portrayal of Women
But the very same feminists lost interest in this law
because in America and Europe, feminism moved on to other issues. This was in large part due to the fact that in
the US, the anti-obscenity pornography stance got associated with right wing
politicians who were traditionally opposed to many dimensions of women's
rights, especially the right to abortion. Therefore, the left wingers,
including many American feminists, began taking a libertarian position. Some of
them also began to see both pornography and prostitution through the prism of
“pro-choice”, arguing that sex work should be treated at par with any other
occupation or profession.
Therefore, an influential section of feminists began to
adopt the same position vis a vis obscenity, pornography and sex trade. The
reasons behind his U-turn are revealing. By the 1990s, the spread of AIDS began
to pose a huge challenge even to western societies. One of the strategies
adopted by western countries was to promote the use of condoms and health
checkups among sex workers. With it came the demand for legalization of all
forms of sex work, including porn. Millions of dollars were poured into western
donor agencies to fund NGOs that lent support to this campaign. Therefore, it
did not take long for an influential section of Indian feminists and prominent
journalists to use ingenious arguments justifying prostitution and pornography
as legitimate professions.
An additional reason for this U-turn was no less instructive.
The campaign for law against indecent representation of women was led by
feminists either directly aligned to left parties or those who saw themselves
as part of the left political spectrum.
Since western donor agencies show a distinct preference for patronizing
those with a leftist orientation, leading feminist NGOs are well-trained to be
virulently against those they dub as “right wing”. This term, borrowed
mindlessly from the political divisions in Europe and America, was thrust on to
BJP and related outfits as well as all those traditional women’s organizations
that are unfamiliar with leftist feminist lingo.
When those alleged to be “right wing” organizations of
women, especially those allied to BJP, began to invoke the anti-obscenity law
to protest against excessive use of sex and violence, the feminist NGOs and
women’s wings connected to Communist parties began condemning such demands as
retrogressive and trashing them as “moral policing”—another term blindly
borrowed from the western feminist experience of battling right wing conservatives
in their respective countries. This trashing happened despite the fact that
“indecency” and “obscenity”—however one may define these two terms—grew by
leaps and bounds after the enactment of a fairly stringent law against
“indecent representation of women.” With
the growth of private TV channels and internet access, entertainment was no
more confined to State-run Doordarshan with its sanitized programmes or cinema halls
which could show only those films which were cleared by the Censor Board.
Countless private TV channels invaded every home, every bedroom, including that
of children. Within no time, came the internet which provided access not just
to sexy movies but also hardcore porn at the click of a button. Mobile telephones put pornography virtually
in every one’s hands, including that of kids.
Therefore, anxiety about alarming dozes of sexually explicit material
through these varied sources began to aggravate even otherwise progressive
parents.
But left wing feminists and their collaborators in the
media erased from their memories and writings their not-so-distant contribution
to bringing in a legislation for “moral policing”—more draconian than the one
left behind by our colonial rulers. Ironically,
left wing feminists were the first group in India to invoke State censorship of
what they termed offensive to their tastes, morals and sense of dignity as
women. They seemed to have acted under the naive assumption that they alone
would have a permanent veto in deciding what is to be banned and what
constitutes indecency.
List of Ban Enthusiasts Keeps Growing
The fact that small women’s groups without any political
base managed to get a special law enacted to ban what they considered
offensive, emboldened other social groups also to press for similar bans on
whatever these communities defined as “hurtful” to their sentiments. For instance, Marathas became hyper-sensitive
about non-hagiographical accounts of warrior king Shivaji’s life and reign. They
began demanding ban of scholarly books that are even remotely critical of
Shivaji.
Likewise, Sikh leaders get virulent if their “hurt
sentiments” do not result in speedy bans on films and books, including
scholarly studies that do not meet with their selective beliefs about the Sikh
Gurus. They were ready to kill Baba Ram
Rahim simply because he dared to dress up like Guru Govind Singh.
The zealous followers of Babasaheb Amebdkar will not just
stop at demanding ban of a book or film which offers even mild criticism of
Babasaheb’s political or personal life. They go on a riotous spree if their
demand is not met.
This list of “ban enthusiasts” is not only endless but an
ever-expanding one.
All these tendencies got strengthened in India by
witnessing the success of Muslim leaders vis a vis Salman Rushdie’s Satanic
Verses and Taslima Nasreen’s books critiquing Islam and the rabid mullahs
of Bangladesh. It is noteworthy that the
Congress Party always went along and surrendered before ban enthusiasts if they
came from communities that affect its electoral fortunes. Under Rajiv Gandhi’s
“secular” government, India was the first country in the world to ban Satanic
Verses under pressure from Islamic fundamentalists. It is also worth remembering
that it was under the CPM government that Taslima Nasreen was thrown out of West
Bengal under pressure from Islamic zealots who were furious at her expose of
the persecution of the Hindu minority in her country.
But the path to censorship was first shown by Indian
feminists who didn’t ask for a ban on this or that book or film but on anything
and everything that this minuscule elite group considered offensive self-appointed
guardians of women’s dignity.
Double Standards of Libertarians
But, as I mentioned earlier, as soon as desi
women’s organizations including BJP women picked up the issue and used their
sensibilities to decide what products deserved ban, the “progressive” feminists
not only disowned the law they had authored but they also began attacking all
such demands as “retrogressive” forms of “moral policing.” If the demand came
from Muslim groups, it was treated deferentially as an assertion of minority
rights to safeguard their culture. But any protest that emanated from a group
that was not virulently anti BJP, it was dubbed freedom-averse, anti-women
Hindutva which began to be equated with “fascist intolerance”.
Among the many such instances, the most telling was the
controversy over M.F. Husain’s nude paintings of Hindu goddesses—some of them
great art but a few were truly offensive.
Among them, Hanuman finding goddess Sita sitting nude on Ravan’s thigh
as he comes to rescue her was outrageous by any standards. Likewise, a naked Durga in a sexual posture
with a lion, goddess Lakshmi sitting naked on the head of Ganesh, a naked Sita
riding the back of Hanuman in a sexually suggestive manner, or a naked Mother
India deeply upset the Hindu community. This was especially so since Husain
never took similar liberties with the beliefs and sentiments of the Muslim
community. For example, in a painting depicting a Muslim Sultan and a Hindu
priest, the former is fully clothed while the Brahmin is totally naked and far
more diminutive in size.
Husain’s defence that statues of Hindu goddesses are
invariably nude or semi-nude didn’t cut any ice because Sita is never depicted
nude—that too on Ravan’s lap! Nor has Mother India ever appeared in the nude.
Moreover, the traditional stone or bronze idols of goddesses may not be clothed,
but they are crafted to evoke reverence not lust. A stone or bronze idol of
Parvati sitting in Shiva’s lap has a very different meaning than Hanuman
finding naked Sita in Ravan’s lap.
However, the very same feminist groups that had mobilized
opinion in favour of banning “Indecent representation” of ordinary women in
media—came out in defence of brazenly obnoxious portrayal of the most sacred
feminine icons of Hindu community. The same media that had given laudatory
coverage to small vigilante groups of women defacing cinema or ad hoardings or
demanding ban on this or that film was upset when Hindu groups demanding a ban
on the public display of those controversial paintings held protest
demonstrations. When some of them took
Husain to court on charges of “obscenity”
and hurting their religious sentiments, the once pro-ban feminists and
media suddenly saw in the legal proceedings against Husain a mortal threat to
artistic freedom at the hands of “fascist Hindutva forces.”
They forgot that fascists don’t go to courts or seek
redress through due legal process. They simply eliminate those they don’t
approve of. Husain chose to leave India and settle down in the UAE under the generous
patronage of the royal family of Abu Dhabi in order to escape defending himself
in Indian courts. This response is not very different from Lalit Modi’s escape
to England. Yes, some fringe Hindu groups did issue death threats but none of
them dared inflict the kind of violence Taslima or Rushdie faced, because Husain
had the backing of the Indian government.
Both Husain and LaMo claimed that they felt unsafe in
India. But Husain became a cause célèbre—a symbol of the Hindu majority’s
persecution of Muslims, a victim of Hindutva’s supposed intolerance towards
artistic freedom etc. By contrast, Lalit
Modi, who alleges that the Dawood gang and their associates in India, pose a threat
to his life gets no sympathy. He has been dubbed a bhagoda who evaded
trial in India. His escape to England is being described as a criminal act even
though no case had been filed against him when he escaped. Husain was never given
the bhagoda title, nor was issued any notice by the government to come back and
put his faith in the courts of India.
In sharp contrast to Husain who got oodles of sympathy
and support from left liberals in India, even though he lived a luxurious life
as a guest of the royal families of UAE, Taslima Nasreen never got a fraction
of sympathy or support from left liberals even though she faces serious death
threats, not just in Bangladesh but also from militant Muslims in India. She
lives an obscure life as a fugitive in India, thrown out of this country as and
when Muslim leaders build a hysterical campaign against her. As someone who
spoke for the endangerdered Hindu
minority in Bangladesh and spoke against the tyranny of radical mullahs,
leftist secularists should have embraced her. But because the CPM turned
hostile to her in the interest of safeguarding their Muslim vote bank, leftists
of all hues keep a safe distance from her.
Pornography becomes Cause Célèbre for Liberals
Thus the recent controversy over pornography has to be
viewed in the context of existing laws enacted during colonial rule and further
solidified under Congress rule with ultra-progressive Rajiv Gandhi as Prime
Minister.
Let me make it clear at the outset that I am not a great
enthusiast for government bans. Let me also state it loud and clear that the
manner in which somecrack pot within the NDA government decided to issue orders
to internet providers to block 857 porn sites was ham-handed, impractical and
counter-productive. That is why within a day or two, a fresh order was issued
saying only child porn sites are to be banned. The internet service providers
have responded saying they don’t have the wherewithal to identify child porn
sites and therefore the government should make up its mind what it really
wants. The government has thus made a mockery of itself.
But it is equally if not more absurd that anti-BJP
intellectuals, mediapersons, self styled “progressives” including a section of
feminists, have come out in defence of pornography as though porn deprivation
amounts to crushing people’s liberty, threatening their well-being and an
assault on their fundamental human rights.
Here is a small sample of the passionate responses in
defence of porn:
Ø …with the
ban on porn sites, the government takes one more step towards the
Talibanization of India.” Milind Deora, former Congress MP.
Ø By banning
porn, India has kicked itself into the dark ages. Watching pornography
is one of the most private things an individual can do…All regressive
governments start by banning internet pornography…It hits people at the very
core, inside their private homes, and allows governments to regulate what
people do in the confines of four walls of their room…Once a society has
accepted a ban on pornography; it is ready for other restrictions. Jawed
Anwar on website dailyO.in
Ø Considering the sheer popularity of porn, whichever government owns up to banning it is sure to be wiped out of existence in the next election…To deprive consenting adults of the harmless fun they are having of (sic) watching porn is equivalent to what Taliban and ISIS is doing to freedom…It’s a proven fact by international surveys that instead of fuelling sex crimes porn actually provides safer outlet for sexual repression.” Ram Gopal Varma, film maker
Ø Considering the sheer popularity of porn, whichever government owns up to banning it is sure to be wiped out of existence in the next election…To deprive consenting adults of the harmless fun they are having of (sic) watching porn is equivalent to what Taliban and ISIS is doing to freedom…It’s a proven fact by international surveys that instead of fuelling sex crimes porn actually provides safer outlet for sexual repression.” Ram Gopal Varma, film maker
Ø The paradox
is that India was not sexophobic then. Every possible sexual posture is carved
in the stones of Khajuraho and Konarak temples. We also had Vatsayan’s
Kamasutra then. It is a great heritage.” Mahesh
Bhatt, film maker, Times of India, August 5.
Ø We should
have destroyed Khajuraho and several other temples in the country. How are
depictions engraved in stone at these places of worship any different? We are
the creators of porn in stone. Then how
can we denounce it? Of course porn that violates human rights should not be
encouraged.” Mani Shankar, film maker, Times of India, August 5.
It is
noteworthy that all those feminists who worked with zeal to push for the enactment
of “Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act” in 1986 have not come
out to support government action against porn sites. They have mostly been
silent or made non-committal statements like the following one by Donna
Fernandes of Vimochana in Bangalore who said: “Instead of knee jerk actions
like bans, we should look at the problem more deeply.”
It is also ironical that the very same westernized elite
class that thought nothing of passing a draconian law against ‘indecent
representation of women “ in 1986, has emerged as defenders of hard core porn! The
pro-porn proponents should understand that the government needs no new law to
prosecute the consumers and peddles of pornography. The IPC covers this “offence”
adequately. The 1986 law made it more
stringent.
Nobody has ever thought of challenging the validity of the
1986 law or Section 292 of the IPC law even though anyone who scratches the
surface of its implementation would know that it has been widely used by the
police to extort bribes from those publishing, producing or selling smutty
magazines, videos, films etc. The police themselves are habitual consumers of
such material and therefore know each and every location where it is produced
or sold. Just as the police collect regular hafta from brothels and pimps
supplying call girls, so also the “obscenity” producers and peddlers have for
long been a regular source of “extra income” for the police.
No surprise then that the extent, scale and depravity of
such materials kept increasing in India as the production of such materials
acquired the form of a well-entrenched industry in the West. India was at first slow in catching up with
the West. Because of the social stigma attached to it, men who consumed porn,
semi-porn or even magazines with pictures of nude or semi-nude women had to do
it surreptitiously.
But today, watching porn is being peddled as a
fundamental human right.
The responses against the porn ban fall in the following broad categories:
Ban is impractical and virtually impossible to enforce: It
is argued that unless India follows the way of dictatorial regimes like China
or South Arabia, there is no way blocking of porn sites can have even marginal
impact.
This is indeed true and the most valid argument against
the ban, especially given the lawless, corrupt police we are saddled with. Anyone
who still has some faith left in the ability or intent of our police force
should watch the recently released film Masaan which depicts the horrific
abuse of power our police routinely indulges in while pretending to combat sex
crimes. Before the internet arrived, one saw pornographic videos being sold in
the form of VHS cassettes even in villages where piped water was not available
and power supply extremely erratic. Today India has caught up with the West in
hosting even live porn shows, thanks to the complicity of the police.
Apparently, there are over 40 million porn sites on the
web and growing every day. Those who are
hungry for porn manage to procure it just as nashedis manage to access liquor
even in states or countries that have enforced prohibition. However, as the
experience of Gujarat shows, while liquor may be available through not-so-secret
networks for all those who want it, it is rare to see a drunkard creating a
nuisance in public as happens in the rest of India. Gujarat’s towns and cities are
among the safest in India. Young women freely move around late into the night
on their scooties either in groups or even alone because there is no risk of
being harassed by drunkards and hoodlums. Even if people drink, they do so
slyly in the privacy of their homes. The fear of being caught by the police
keeps them from appearing in public since social legitimacy attached to
drinking has been taken away. Therefore, far fewer people drink even among the
working class. Women are the biggest supporters of prohibition since it means
less domestic violence and fewer chances of men blowing up what they earn on
liquor.
Similarly, ban on pornographic sites may not be totally
effective, but it will surely deny pornography the kind of social legitimacy it
has come to acquire in recent years. By making access difficult, it will
certainly inhibit its consumption.
Blocking Porn Sites Invades the Right to
Privacy:
This libertarian position holds that the State has no business to interfere in
what a person does in the privacy of his/her home.
This is an eminently reasonable position for most
part. But it acquires a spurious
character when used with regard to pornography. Firstly, porn is today being
downloaded and viewed on mobile phones, being shared not just with close
friends but also being posted on Facebook and other social media sites. People
are watching it in offices, including government offices. There are theatres
that specialize in running porn films. People organize porn parties to be
followed by partner swapping, group sex and much else.
Thus the porn industry is not a “private bedroom” affair.
I would have no issue if a couple invited their friends to watch them engage in
sex in the privacy of their homes—whether as a lesson in innovative sex or for
plan titillation. But pornography is today a trillion-dollar industry where women
are often held captive as sex slaves.
What is more, a large part of porn materials on the net
are surreptitiously-filmed sex acts which are then leaked without the consent
of the concerned women. Incidents of
gang rape being video recorded and put out on the net are not uncommon either.
Porn is a Harmless Pleasure Sport: Pornography
is a product of perverse male fantasies which treat women as mere objects of
pleasure and male gratification, and as pieces of flesh to be consumed by men, like
carnivorous animals feed on the meat of weaker species. A large part of porn is
a deadly mixture of sex with violence, sadism and outright bestiality. Even
ordinary porn is not an edifying introduction to sexual pleasure. The one and
only time I saw a porn movie some 20 years ago, I was simply revolted. Far from
titillating or arousing me, it nauseated me for the degrading way it treated
women as slavish recipients of male lust in its crudest manifestation. No less
revolting was the projection of men as brainless, heartless emotionless stud
bulls. And this was not even one of the sadistic types. Women whose
partners/husbands are addicted to porn will tell you how messed up their sexual
and emotional life becomes.
A student currently interning with me described it very
aptly in the following words, though he admitted to being an occasional
consumer of porn for relieving stress: “It’s like dogs going at it. The
whole thing is extremely crude and unrealistic. It certainly messes up male
sexuality by giving men performance anxiety since they cannot possibly match
the stud bulls of porn. That is exactly
what ultimately puts you off porn.”
Moreover, today it is
the product of a well entrenched industry, a commercial empire spanning
continents—and a very unethical one at that. People who work in it do so for
money, not for pleasure, just as those who risk selling banned drugs, do so for
making a quick buck not for the love of that trade. Barring exceptions like Sunny Leone, most
porn actors end up with tragic lives. It has been widely reported that porn
actors tend to die young because they are given steroids, hooked on to deadly
drugs and also run a much higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases. The
same libertarians who will emote profusely over working conditions of bonded
labourers in agriculture show absolutely no concern for the sex workers trapped
in the porn industry.
One can only feel sorry for those whose idea of
“pleasure” and “sport” doesn’t balk at degradation of women who either get
sucked into this trade for quick money or are trapped in it as sex slaves.
Those who argue that porn is a necessary part of adult
life, is a harmless fun sport—need to answer whether they would let their own
daughters—or even sons—become porn meat even if it means becoming as famous as
Sunny Leone!
Adult Porn is about free choice but child
porn should be banned: This too is clever posturing. All those who
piously declare that child pornography is not kosher but adult porn is OK
pretend to be unaware that children, especially teenagers have become major
consumers of porn. With what moral authority can parents prohibit their teenage
kids from watching porn, if they are themselves regular consumers? The
difficulties in blocking child porn sites are the same as for adult sites. Since most of these service providers are
based outside India, there is very little that the Indian government can do to
block them, especially since these sites have a way of resurrecting themselves
in new avatars within hours of being blocked.
Moreover, special service providers like “deep and dark internet” enable
access to child porn, bestial porn and a lot more to its clientele with
governments having no way of controlling it.
Most important of all, it is almost impossible to tell
with certainty the age of porn actors. A 16-year-old girl could easily pass off
as a 19-year-old with the use of hormonal drugs or surgical interventions to
give the girl heavy rounded breasts and artificially induced all-round growth.
Teenage boys on steroids can also pass off as above 18.
Those who take a moral stand against use of children in
the porn industry need to tell us whether consumption of porn by young kids is
OK. If it is not acceptable, how do you
control their access to porn in the day of mobile telephones, without resorting
to blocking porn sites?
Porn not out of place in the land of the Kama
Sutra: The most
devious of all arguments is that in the land of the Kama Sutra and in a culture
where ancient temples like Konarak and Khajuraho exist, we can’t afford to be
prudish about sex or pornography. We are
reminded that “India’s cultural history is unique in recognizing sexual desire
as a highly desirable attribute of human beings, that pursuit of kama (sexual
desire) is one of the four pillars of Hindu life along with dharma, artha,
and moksha.
It is ironical that the westernized elite who rarely find
anything worthwhile in the Hindu culture and are forever trashing Hindu
civilization for being oppressive, backward looking, life-denying, anti-women,
anti this, anti that—latch on to the Hindu heritage only when it comes to Khajuraho
and Kama Sutra!
But to compare Kama Sutra or the stone carvings in
the temples of Khajuraho and Konarak with porn is like comparing chalk with
cheese. To equate crass commercialization of sex through porn with celebratory
depiction of sex in ancient Hindu art and literature is to not know the
difference between Casanova’s promiscuity and Lord Krishna’s raas lila
with gopis. The very fact that
sexual union in myriad forms finds place in Hindu temples shows that kama was
treated as sacred only so long as it was grounded in dharma. Kama doesn’t stand alone, it is one of
the four pursuits of life which are to be kept balanced by adherence to dharma
just as pursuit of artha (material wealth) or even moksha
(liberation from worldly attachments) could not ignore the requirements of dharma—the
code of ethics for diverse situations of life. That integral bonding of kama
and dharma is what enabled the Hindu tradition to display and
worship the symbols of sexual union in temples.
This celebration and worship of sex was not a hidden, secret cult. It was displayed on the outer and inner walls
of our temples and worshipped in the form of Shivalingam in the main sanctum—open
to all—men and women, old and young, adults and children alike.
Ethical indulgence in sex includes caring for your
partner, respect for his or her feelings, emotions and desires, including
taking responsibility for its intended or unintended outcomes--such as
pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. Ethics in sex also means not
treating it as a secret vice even though the sexual act takes place in the
privacy of one’s bedroom. Kama and
dharma going together have no place for rape or one-way sexual
gratification. When dharma guides kama, one doesn’t cheat on
one’s partner or exploit the poverty and vulnerability of a woman for
prostitution. Dharma will not allow making sex into bazaroo
pleasure or crass buying or selling of sex.
Can the most avid defenders of porn say the same about commercially
available pornography and the sleazy industry that produces it? Would all those who equate the sculptures of
Konarak with porn flaunt the pornographic images they consume as a secret
pleasure on the outer walls of their homes or offices?
The bald fact is that over time, pornography coarsens
human sensibilities and robs sex of all ethical considerations. Most of those
who consume it have to hide it not only from their children or parents but also
from their wives. This is how a young man who watches porn on his mobile phone
fairly frequently responded when asked if he shares porn films with his wife: “Oh
my god, I watched porn with my wife once but its impact rattled me. No man
should ever make this blunder. A woman who starts watching porn expects
her husband to perform in the same manner—continue hammering her for an hour or
two non-stop. No man can satisfy a woman fed on porn. It kills your
relationship. If you can’t meet with her porn-aroused expectations—which are
totally unrealistic, she starts looking around for other men. Porn is meant
only for women who are into professional whoring.”
Most male friends/relatives I spoke to, barring a few new
age couples, had similar responses. They admitted to watching porn occasionally
but most were emphatic that they would never share it with their wives. In
fact, a majority of them said their wives would haul them over the coals if
they got to know of their secret indulgence. None of them wanted their children
to even get a hint of it lest they lose respect in the eyes of their kids. This
sense of shame in itself speaks volumes.
State has no business to interfere in private lives of citizens: This too is an eminently sound position to take, but westernized “modernists” use it very selectively only in those areas where they want to appear in tune with prevailing intellectual fashions and social trends in the West.
For instance, incest takes place mostly in the privacy of
homes, but such a relation is treated as a crime in western countries.
Therefore, the Indian elite too accept it as a crime. The day American society
decides to treat it as “normal”, Indian libertarians are likely to readily fall
in line.
Let me illustrate this through an example. Western
governments, through their donor agencies, have managed to convince countries
like India that they have to control women’s fertility and limit family size to
a maximum of two children. Consequently, the educated elite of India fully
support any and every coercive measure to impose the two-child norm on the
poorer sections of society, including disqualifying people from contesting
panchayat elections if they flout the norm. No western government in this day
and age dare enact a law restricting a family’s right to have as many children
as they want. But since the West thinks Indians need such authoritarian
controls, our elites don’t find it abhorrent.
Similarly, the libertarian elite have no objection when
the government enacts a draconian law making sex selective abortion a serious
crime , even though abortion per se is not only legal but also upheld as a
woman’s basic right. Whether a couple wants a son or a daughter is a personal
choice. The State ought not to have a say in such matters. But we allow the State
this intrusion in the overall interest of society.
Another example: For millennia the terms of marriage and
divorce in India were decided by biradari norms and no ruler dared impose laws
to regulate these matters among the diverse communities of this land. But in
the West, even though marriage and divorce are considered a personal affair
between two individuals, yet States have imposed a range of laws to determine
its terms and conditions. Consequently, the Indian elite also brought in
elaborate legislations to regulate relations between husband and wife,
including their sexual conduct vis a vis each other. Similarly, at what age two
persons can engage in sex or get married without being treated as offenders in
the eyes of law is today decided by the State. Indian libertarians don’t find
fault with such legal intrusions because they have been adopted from the
prevailing norms in western countries.
But since pornography has become legally permissible in
western countries, our copycat elite are not willing to brook any opposition to
it.
Women have also become consumers of pornography: In recent years, the porn industry has begun to produce female-oriented porn in an attempt to neutralize criticism that it projects women as brainless bimbos who exist only to cater to male sex fantasies. So now we have porn which projects women as active agents who use men as their playthings. Apparently, this has increased the number of women that watch porn as a counter to the fact that much of the opposition to porn traditionally came from women. As per a recent study of dubious worth, even in India, 30 per cent of porn watchers are women. This claim is aimed at strengthening the case of pro-porn lobby that there is nothing anti-women in it.
This argument may work with the most gullible variety of
feminists but it won’t convince those whose sense of ethics is not derived from
the brute force of numbers. For instance, smoking or tobacco chewing does not
become healthy just because a lot more women have become addicted to its use.
Theft and dacoity does not become socially acceptable just because the number
of women engaged in these crimes has increased manifold. Prostitution cannot
become respectable just because an increasing number of middle class women are
voluntarily opting for it to make a quick buck.
The great gift of western capitalism is that it knows how
to manufacture consent through many devious means. It can seduce people into believing
that they are enhancing their life quality even while consuming patently
harmful products. A good example is that of aerated colas and sundry bottled drinks.
It has been well established that they are bad for health and addiction to them
at an early age can damage children’s mental and physical growth, and yet, through
seductive advertising and aggressive marketing, corporates have managed to
invade the pockets of even the poor by making its consumption appear as a symbol
of good life and upward mobility. Coca Cola will not become less harmful even
if a thousand market research findings showed that it is more popular among
girls and women than among boys and men.
There is no relationship between consumption of porn and rising graph of sex crimes: It is noteworthy that almost all the studies that claim that there is no correlation between porn and crime have been done by those who support porn. Conversely, those who are opposed to pornography marshal contrary evidence to show that it strengthens negative stereotyping of women as sex objects, coarsens sensibilities and feeds into sexual brutalization and crimes against women. It is also noteworthy that most of these studies have been done in the West. There is no serious attempt to study the correlation between the two in India.
True, most who watch pornography don’t turn rapists, just
as all those who consume liquor don’t turn into wife beaters. But there is
direct correlation between high incidents of drunkenness and wife battering. In
communities where liquor consumption is looked down upon or is kept within
control, domestic violence is relatively less common. It is rampant among
communities where majority of men are habitual drunkards. So also with
pornography, especially since a large part of porn is a deadly mixture of sex
and violence, with women shown even enjoying the brutalization of their bodies.
A strong dose of sadism is an integral part of porn. When such attitudes and
images are implanted repeatedly in the minds of the young and impressionable,
they are likely to make them seek similar forms of gratification, using sex as
an instrument of gross domination rather than mutual pleasure. While people
from stable families and internally cohesive communities who exercise a measure
of social restraint among its members can handle small doses of porn without
being damaged emotionally, by all accounts porn has a very explosive impact on
the socially rootless, mal-educated, underemployed army of lumpenized youth
being produced in India.
Rape was not uncommon in India but in today’s India, the
sheer demonic brutality with which the bodies of women and even little girls
are being vandalized and done to death in gruesome ways is likely to have a
direct correlation with the ferocious spread of sadist porn. This phenomenon
deserves serious study.
The Bane of Copycat Elite
The raging debate between defenders and opponents of porn
is not a clash between prudes seeking sexual repression versus freedom lovers
opting for joyful assertion of sexuality. It is essentially a clash between
westernized Indian modernists pitched against those with traditional
sensibilities towards male-female relations. The English-educated elite have a
strong tendency towards blindly aping the dominant social values of the time in
the West. Unfortunately, the western cultures are known for unstable tastes, forever
swinging from one extreme to the other in their blind pursuit of change and
novelty. What is fashionable today—be it in the domain of clothing , art ,
architecture, literacy genres or intellectual ideas—becomes unfashionable and
discardable tomorrow.
Western modernity demands a sharp break from tradition.
But in India, we prefer to inhabit a world of continuities where past and
present are intimately and creatively connected. The donning of denim jeans
does not make the traditional Banarsi or Kanjivaram silk sarees we have
inherited from our mothers or grandmas unwanted or unfashionable. They continue
to be valued in their own right, occupying a pride of place in every woman’s
closet. This is what makes most of us in India reject wholesale adoption of
western modernity. We are more comfortable adopting it in palatable doses that
don’t uproot us from our past traditions and culture. In the immortal words of
Mahatma Gandhi, “I do not want my house to
be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of
all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to
be blown off my feet by any.”
But the hyper-westernized modernists want violent
rejection of our traditional culture and values and swing with abandon with
every changing fashion in the west.
During the Victorian era, the British managed to convince
the Indian elite to adopt their prudish values as a mark of “civilized behaviour”.
This included looking down upon matrilineal communities where monogamous
marriage of the Christian world was unknown and women were free to choose and
discard sexual partners at will. The matrilineal communities were subjected to
aggressive ideological warfare aimed at convincing them that their social
practices were immoral and depraved. The
mission was indeed successful.
Matrilineal communities of India are now history.
Likewise, tribal and other communities where live-in
relationships have had the same status as regular marriage, with no stigma
attached to children of such unions, were targeted by missionaries to convert
to Victorian/Christian norms of marriage, divorce and stigma of illegitimacy
attached to children born out of such unions. Similarly, Bengali bhadralok were
made to feel ashamed of their women wearing blouse-less sarees. Consequently,
women of elite Bengali families adopted Victorian-style high-necked, full-sleeved
blouses as a sign of “high culture” and women’s modesty.
The devadasis in the South who were repositories of
classical arts, music, dance et al were condemned as prostitutes and vigorous
campaigns launched for the abolition of this tradition at enormous loss to the
classical art traditions.
These are just a few of the countless examples one can
cite of the English-educated elite in India happily adopting the ideological
prism and dominant norms of the West in viewing their own culture and slavishly
adopting western norms as hallmarks of “progressive thinking.” This tendency
did not get curbed after India won freedom from British colonial rule. On the
contrary, this has gotten further entrenched in post-independence India in all
those spheres of life controlled and influenced by the English-educated elite.
That is why when feminist voices in the West grew strong
against obscene portrayals of women and equated pornography with prostitution,
they went ahead and demanded any law to ban such portrayal without caring to
build safeguards against its easy abuse.
As old-style feminism lost its clout in the West and
divisions appeared within feminist ranks on this issue, the anti-porn position
got intellectually junked because of its
association with right wing politics which has a strong track record of
illiberal, anti-choice positions vis a vis women’s rights such as right to
abortion, divorce etc. Therefore, the westernized elite in India also swung in
favour of porn as a symbol of liberated sexuality.
Our westernized elites rooting for porn feel moral doing
so because the United States Supreme Court had upheld in the Stanley vs Georgia
case that people could view whatever they wished in the privacy of their own
homes, thus establishing “right to privacy” law. This view was further bolstered
by the US Commission on Obscenity and Pornography appointed by President Lyndon
Johnson whose report in 1970 concluded that “there was insufficient evidence
that exposure to explicit sexual materials played a significant role in the
causation of delinquent or criminal behaviour”. The verdict of this Commission
has been used as the ultimate weapon in the hands of libertarians that
legislation “should not seek to interfere with the right of adults who wish to
do so to read, obtain or view explicit sexual materials, “ but that such
material should be restricted to adults.
This Commission actually undertook massive original
research which established among other things that repeated exposure to
pornography “caused decreased interest in it”.
But these words of wisdom were not heeded in 1986 because
at that time anti-porn voices within the US feminist movement such as Robin
Morgan and Susan Griffin were in the political centrestage.
The issue was never settled even in the US because
certain members of the Commission submitted a minority report expressing disagreement
with the majority view. When Republicans came to power, a new commission was
set up in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan, headed by Edwin Meese. In 1986, this
commission reached the opposite conclusion. This was not backed by solid
research unlike the earlier commission and most members had an anti-porn bias,
nevertheless its conclusions can’t be altogether rubbished, especially the
following observations:
1.
Pornography that portrays sexual aggression
as pleasurable for the victim increases the acceptance of the use of coercion
in sexual relations.
2.
Acceptance of coercive sexuality appears to
be related to sexual aggression.
3.
In laboratory studies measuring short-term
effects, exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behaviour towards
women.
In short, there is a solid opinion even within the US
that pornography constitutes a serious threat to “public health”.
However as the feminist movement waned, the anti-pornography
stance came to be associated mainly with the right wing of American politics.
That is why in recent years, leftists and self-styled liberals in India began
to emerge as defenders of porn and dubbing the anti-porn opinion as a product
of right wing “Hindutva” ideology. This amounts to mindless aping of western
categories and political battle lines on to an altogether different scenario in
India.
In India, there is no comparable “left wing” versus
“right wing” divide on this and other women’s rights issues even though the
pro-porn proponents would like us to believe that only “Hindutva” votaries are
against pornography. The truth is that here, not a single party including those
who are virulently anti-BJP, anti-Hindutva, would dare take an openly pro-porn
position. They would be lynched by their own cadre, including those who may be
secret consumers of porn.
We cannot blindly rely on research findings of other
countries, most of which have an ideological bias. The least we owe ourselves
is to think the issue through our own lenses instead of using borrowed lenses
and copycat wisdom.
Feminize Men, not Masculinize Women
The State can only deny legal legitimacy to the
consumption of porn, not curb or eliminate it by banning porn sites because in
this day and age of the internet, bans don’t work.
The real challenge lies in combating the growing social
legitimacy of porn which has come about ever since the westernized elite
began to flaunt their indulgence in it as a legitimate and “natural” expression
of sexuality. For instance, smoking and
tobacco use are negligible among Sikhs in comparison to most other communities
of India simply because these are really looked down upon by the entire Sikh
community. No law against smoking could achieve comparable abstinence. So also
with sex crimes.
The stand we take on porn has far-reaching implications
for the fate of the family as an institution. Porn as an industry is an
offshoot of the free sex movement in the West. Just as unrestrained
individualism which accepts no cause bigger than I, me, and mine spells the
death knell of the family as an institution, so also unrestrained pursuit of kama
or sexual indulgence without any roots in dharma spells the doom of
marriage as an institution, which demands loyalty and commitment as its
founding rocks. Without these qualities and willingness to exercise sanyam
(self-restraint) you cannot provide a stable family life to your children. The
proof is for all to see—in most western countries, irresponsible notions of
sexual liberation have severely eroded the role of family as an institution.
Those who deride the value of sexual restraint need to
understand that every society, including the most sexually liberated ones have
set moral limits. For instance, it is not uncommon for men to feel sexually
attracted to their younger brother’s wife or even their own daughter-in-law.
Some even end up establishing illicit relations or raping their bhabhi
or bahu. But I can’t think of a single society which does not look down
upon such relations as shameful. That is why such sexual indulgences are kept
under check. Without a healthy dose of “moral policing”, family and society
will fall apart.
Thus far, most societies have adopted double standards in
“moral policing” which are grossly in favour of men. The tyranny of these
double standards has pushed many women into thinking that freedom lies in
emulating men. The world over, male sexuality has displayed a tendency to
express itself in forms that demean women. Rape, prostitution and sex slavery
predate the emergence of porn as an industry. But in most civilized societies,
these were socially disapproved as brutalities that respectable men would not
stoop down to committing.
The history of civilization can well be described as the
history of society trying to put male sexuality under certain restraints. Hence
the universal move towards criminalization of rape, sex trade etc as well as
enactment of laws which force men to take responsibility for their marriage
partner. However, pornography encourages men back in the direction of
restraint-free, amoral sex which is totally dissociated from caring and love.
This may work for men but is lethal for women. Therefore, the least women owe
themselves is to act as restraining influences on men instead of adopting their
vices as a sign of liberation. It is not for nothing that Mahatma Gandhi thought
the future of humankind lay in feminizing men instead of masculinizing women!
That is however a long-term battle. In the meantime, we
need to undertake serious studies in India keeping our own social challenges
and cultural traditions in mind to find out whether:
a)
Addiction to pornography has an enduring
impact on male female relations.
b)
Does it legitimize the use of violence and
coercion in sexual relations?
c)
What is the impact on marital relations of
men or couples that watch porn? Does their sex life improve or worsen?
d)
At what age are young kids in India getting
exposed to or seeking out porn? How does it impact their relations to females,
whether of their age or older?
e)
Are males and females addicted to watching
more likely to have extra-marital relations?
f)
What is the proportion of child porn, soft
adult porn, hard porn, sadist porn and bestial porn being watched in India?
g)
What is the incidence of porn addiction among
men convicted of rape and other sexual brutalities? Do they see a link between
porn addiction and sex crimes?
Questions to these and many other related questions
require serious countrywide social research through our own lenses, keeping our
social requirements and notions of dignified male-female relations in mind. If
it turns out that porn has indeed emerged as a serious challenge to mental
health and increased violence and perversion in male-female relations, we do
need to find ways of dealing with this menace.
First published at http://swarajyamag.com/ on September 12, 2015: http://swarajyamag.com/magazine/to-ban-or-not-to-ban/
