The Sena’s women’s wing visited Pramod Navalkar on December 1, but were apparently told he could not ban a film passed by the censor board. So, as Sarpotdar has wisely observed, ‘people’ decided to ‘take things into their own hands’. What won’t the Shiv Sena do for the preservation of ‘Indian Culture’!

From the time the mahilas reportedly met Navalkar to the moment the assault was launched on the New Empire and Cinemax theatres in Mumbai, less than 72 hours had passed. And the chief minister of Maharashtra, Manohar Joshi, wasted no time whatsoever in openly congratulating the ‘frustrated people’s’ act of vandalism. Considering that no one attacked the vegetable markets in Mumbai or elsewhere in Maharashtra while for weeks when onion prices had hit the sky, it is reasonable to conclude that under ‘Shivshahi’ people people know their owns – culture comes before culinary delights.

But the attack on Regal Theatre in Delhi would suggest that the pre–meditated acts of violence were prompted by orders from above rather than being an uprising from below. In fact, the sainik hooligans who disrupted the showing of Fire at Regal Theatre in Delhi, and faced TV cameras (Star News) immediately thereafter said they were merely acting on aadesh (directive) from Mumbai.

"By removing the film, you want to show your muscle", said lyricist Javed Akhtar. "The message is that we are the law. It’s not the film in question, its the system which is in question. Do we have the rule of law, or is it running on someone’s whims?" Dharavi, an earlier Shabana Azmi film, had received a similar treatment soon after the Mumbai riots in 1993. This raises the question as to who is the real target of the Sena’s ire: Fire or Shabana Azmi?

If Manohar Joshi stopped at ‘merely’ congratulating the law–breakers, Union minister of state for information and broadcasting, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi put his ministry’s stamp of approval on the misdeed by ordering that Fire be sent back to the Censor Board for a review of their earlier decision. The fact that numerous women’s organisation, social activists, artistes from different parts of the country, ordinary women and men strongly protested against the assault on Fire was of little consequence to Naqvi. The prompt reaction of several people from the otherwise timid film industry in support of the film is the only heartening development in this latest assault on freedom of expression.

On December 5, a letter–petition — signed by thespian Dilip Kumar, well–known playwright Vijay Tendulkar, retired judge of the Bombay High Court, Justice Hosbet Suresh, popular film–maker Mahesh Bhatt, Javed Akhtar, senior lawyer, Atul Setalvad and the editors of Communalism Combat — was submitted to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court pleading the apex court’s intervention in the matter. As we go to press, the petition has come up for hearing before Justice AP Mishra.

The petition urges the Supreme Court’s intervention in a clear case of violation of constitutionally–guaranteed fundamental rights. It also points to the dangers inherent in a political dispensation where law–makers cheer law–breakers. It also observes that any objection to a film that has won 14 international awards and has already been cleared by the Censor Board should be made in a court of law and not by acts of hooliganism.

Meanwhile, a large candle–light vigil was held outside the Regal Theatre in Delhi, on the evening of December 7, by various women’s groups. Deepa Mehta, the maker of Fire, also participated. As one of the participants in the vigil remarked, "There was no public protest. 40 hooligans barging into a theatre, is not public protest. This is a public protest". When interviewed by newspapers, most women who had already seen Fire said they liked it and found nothing objectionable. This is not surprising, considering that though the film depicts lesbianism, its real focus is the predicament of women in a tradition–bound, male–dominated society.

The ‘threat to Indian culture’ is a convenient ploy adopted by its self–appointed custodians to throttle any voice of dissent by resort to violence.