Kaali Poster Controversy

Key Takeaways

• “The Kaali Poster” controversy revolves around the poster of a documentary, depicting goddess Kali smoking a cigarette and holding an LGBTQ flag, presumably presenting herself as an ally.
• The poster has hurt sentiments of certain sects of the Hindu Community.
• The person accused is Leena Manemekalai, an Indo-Canadian Filmmaker.
• This controversy involves the use or abuse of Article 19, which protects the right of free speech and expression.
• Several authorities, both Indian and Canadian, have commented on this developing situation.

Introduction

The “Kaali Poster” has become the eye of the proverbial storm in this volatile political climate, with TMC MP Mahua Moitra facing FIRs about her comment on the same and movie maker Leena Manimekalai answering the legal summons. With religious tensions already high owing to the recent Udaipur killing; the poster is causing quite a stir among the Hindu community. Is this an episode of the new “cultural policing” phenomenon, undertaken by the self-appointed guardians of Indian morality, or do the accusations carry enough weight to justify the legal recourse? This “controversy” brings to fore the purview of Article 19 of the Indian constitution. The article propounds Freedom of speech and expression and covers Creative liberty, but to what extent? This article will further discuss and dissect the relevance and various aspects of the controversy.

The Controversy and its Context

The issue was sparked when Leena Manimekalai, a Madurai-born, Canadian filmmaker, landed herself in hot water by sharing the poster of her documentary “Kaali ‘’ on Twitter on July 2nd. The poster depicts a character dressed as goddess Kali, smoking a cigarette and holding a trident in one hand and an LGBTQ flag in the other. The Hindu community claimed it “hurt religious sentiments” and demanded the arrest of Manimekalai. An FIR was registered against Manimekalai by the Delhi police.The police have booked her under sections 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and 295A (Whoever, with the 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).

Trinamool Congress’ MP, Mahua Moitra added fuel to fire with her comment to the media, saying “When you go to Sikkim, you will see that they offer whiskey to Goddess Kaali. But if you go to Uttar Pradesh, and if you tell them that you offer whiskey to the goddess as ‘prasad’, they will call it blasphemy. Kaali to me is a meat-eating, alcohol-accepting Goddess.” Bajrang Dal, a Hindu Nationalist Militant Organization has registered an FIR against Moitra for her remarks.

Toronto-based Aaga Museum also took down their Presentation of the Documentary after the Indian mission in Ottawa reached out to the Canadian authorities to take down all “provocative material” related to the controversial film. The museum issued a statement of regret, apologizing to the offended communities.

Leena Manimekalai’s Take

Leena Manimekalai took to Twitter and wrote in Tamil expressing that she has nothing to lose and hence, would continue to speak out without fear. She further describes the unreleased documentary as contemporary and modern, with goddess Kali roaming the streets of Toronto, and urges everyone to watch it and comprehend the full context of the poster. She said “If you watch this film you will not share hashtags demanding my arrest but you will tweet with hashtags showing love towards me,”

Her tweet received backlash from the Hindu community, including prominent power figures.

Art.19 and its Relevance

Article 19(1) (a) provides for freedom of speech and expression. Enshrined in the Indian Constitution, this article is crucial for the functioning of a democratic setup.

The article was derived from Hate Speech Law Section 295(A) enacted by the British Administration in India. This act was conceived in the backdrop of a series of murders of Arya Samaj leaders in the 1890s who spoke disputatiously against Islam. It was thus, imposed by the British on the Hindus in order to shield Islam from criticism. The article was then amended accordingly, after independence and became a part of the constitution.

Being able to express a reasonable opinion freely, without fear of consequences is what makes a democracy, especially one like India, thrive. However, the ambiguity of “reasonable” can sometimes be weaponized. Mahua Moitra, for example, is facing severe backlash for remarks about the Kaali poster. Bharatiya Janata Party’s social media head Amit Malviya said, “Freedom of speech is only for insulting Hindu Goddesses. From MF Hussain to Owaisi to now Moitra, all have selectively targeted the Hindu religion because they know that Hindus are tolerant.” He has demanded an apology from TMC on behalf of Moitra.

Freedom of art and artistic expression too is included under the Art 19 dogma. Artistic Freedom adds to the culture and keeps political health too, pink. However, in the past, Art 19. And its restrictions have been used to curb this freedom. Art has been challenged because of its message, content, or perspective. For example, veteran painter MF Husain’s work, nude Bharat Mata or the Naked Saraswati was banned on grounds of hurt religious sentiments. Thus, the usage of Art19 to curb creative freedom is not novel.

Conclusion

The Kaali Poster Controversy and all the cruel backlash it has received is yet another episode in the series of growing intolerance among the Indian populace and how dissent is no more civilized. Every time anything of this nature takes place, no foundational principles are ever discussed, no new, concrete guidelines are drawn up, and thus, each time a sensitive issue comes to light, everyone goes around in circles and engages in the same debate. Every time we participate in a debate, the problem lies in the manner with which the debate is conducted, confusing and discombobulating various components, most of which aren’t even correlated.

This debate is probably as old as art itself.

This growing trend of intolerance should not be tolerated, the judiciary should do better at protecting this right. Freedom of expression is recognized universally as a Human Right – a basic right of every human being which does not discriminate amongst them on absolutely any grounds. In a “free” society, like ours which proudly boasts of democracy, the constitution should be respected as the overruling law, interpreting it according to changing times. The decrees of cultural vigilantes should not be allowed to become the supreme law. Anything less would be a disappointing betrayal of the secular, accommodating and liberal values we hold dear.