When I wrote about Ms Pratibha Naitthani and her crusade to “clean up” television programming in this country, I didn’t realize fully the implications of what she’s doing. It’s actually much, much worse than I thought. There’s a police officer, too, one Sanjay Aparanti, written up some time ago in the Indian Express who, apparently, has “decided to rid Mumbai of all obscenity”. Of course, this gent is the final word on what is and what is not obscene. No doubt he is supremely qualified to decide. I wonder what his views on Lady Chatterley’s Lover are, and whether they’ve at all moved on since the 1960’s when the Supreme Court held it to be obscene and without redeeming social or artistic importance. I’d like to believe we’ve come some distance from then, but reading the newspapers today I rather doubt it. And then there’s Ms Naitthani who proudly declares, “What’s wrong with being the moral police?”. At least that’s how she was quoted.
I’ll tell you what’s wrong. It’s fascist, totalitarian and completely opposed to every tenet of a democracy. I find it curious that a professor in political science can be so utterly blind to the historical antecedents of what she says and does, and equally impervious to its ramifications for the future. Her stand, and her statements, display a moral arrogance and an egregious level of intolerance for counterpoint. Frankly, nothing — and I mean nothing — qualifies this 37-year old with such a demonstrably tenuous grasp of history and social issues to decide what others can watch, say and do. She has the right to her voice. She has no right to silence others (see “Voltaire said it best” on this blog). The only thing — and I mean the only thing — not to be tolerated is intolerance itself.
Let me explain what I mean by Naitthani moral arrogance. Let’s understand what exactly Naitthani says, albeit sub-silentio, when she says that television programming that is “inappropriate” for children must be banned. For one thing, she accuses me and my spouse of being irresponsible, or — and this is worse — incompetent parents of our two daughters. We can’t, it seems, be trusted to bring them properly. We lack the werewithal to guide what they read or see. Second, since my daughters are now in their mid and late teens respectively, it necessarily follows that, not having had the benefit if Naitthani’s moral policing, my daughters are somehow wanting as young adults. What gives Naitthani the right to pass judgement on me and my family?
As a matter of fact, we have never “banned” our children from watching or reading anything. We believe that doing so usually has exactly the opposite effect, of making that which is banned seem that much more temptation. The fruit that is forbidden appears sweeter simply because it is forbidden. Instead, we’ve given them our respect and trust and they’ve honoured both, in full measure. They are young, mature, very sensible, very funny and an absolute delight and their instincts can’t be faulted. Though this may come as a bit of a surprise to Ms Naitthani, we’ve done exceedingly well in our children by not “banning” them from anything. A year or so ago, my younger daughter, then 12, was curious to know what film I was watching. I let her watch it. She sat throught it, all two hours and more. It was John Frankenheimer’s “Path to War”, a very good movie about Vietnam and Lyndon B Johnson. Now is that appropriate or inappropriate for a 12-year old? I know that it disturbed her and we spent a lot of time after talking about it, and I had a hard time answering her many questions. The point, though, is that do I believe my child benefited from the experience? Or is it better that she content herself with something less “inappropriate”. And I still don’t understand what gives Naitthani, or anyone else, the right to decide. There are no objective tests here, and, frankly, Naitthani’s morality is certainly not mine. I find almost all the popular soaps deeply offensive. There is wild and repeated stereotyping of women and communities. The woman with the short hair, or in a dress, or who doesn’t wear a mangalsutra the size of railway tracks, or smokes is, by definition, the Evil One. Gujarati women are good only for dressing up to the nines every morning to face the high point of their daily lives — chopping vegetables. These serials raise social and family dysfunctionality to the level of a paradigm, and do so in a nakedly voyeuristic manner. Is this not “inappropriate”? I think so, though I imagine Ms Naitthani would certainly disagree.
Actually, there is a much neater solution that should suggest itself to someone of Naitthani’s intellectual rigour and steely moral fibre. If you’re allergic to some food, you just don’t eat it. If you’re averse to a television programme, don’t watch it. Nobody’s holding a gun to your head, or your children’s.
And if it’s kids you’re worried about, it’s even easier. Don’t have them. Perhaps that’s really what Naitthani wants to achieve, after all, and we’ve all misunderstood her. It’s not mind-control she’s after. It’s population control.
Post a comment