Two seemingly unrelated events took place, one the stabbing of novelist Salman Rushdie in New York, and the other the ostensible ‘boycott’ of the movie Laal Singh Chadha in cinema halls of mofussil India. Both events were rooted in angst and rejection in certain sections of society, only one was accompanied with a decidedly violent expression of perceived disaffection. Both incidents were also borne of the modern day ‘cancel culture’ or ‘call-out culture’, where the ascribed offender is sought to be ostracized (or punished as in the case of Salman Rushdie) for offending the moral sensibilities of one side of the argument. Further societal polarisation is inevitable in both situations, as neither bridges the underlying divide. Neither the stabbing nor the ‘boycott’ makes the society more inclusive or harmonious.

In an auto-instinctive, over simplistic and binary world of two labels i.e., ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ ~ those who seek the ban/boycott/cancel are labelled as the ‘conservatives’ or even ‘undemocratic’, while those who seek to assert their creative expression (be it via a book or a movie) are deemed the ‘liberals’ or even the ‘democrats’. But in a hyperpolarized world of inadequate labels, one often forgets that those who seek to ‘boycott’ are not necessarily undemocratic or ‘conservatives’, as in its pure essence, ‘boycott’ can actually be the most democratic and civilized way of disagreeing or even protesting. Obviously when the public expression regresses from just ‘boycott’ to unsubstantiated callouts, falsehoods or enforced ‘cancellation’, and even more regrettably towards violence (as in the Rushdie case), does it become simply unacceptable and uncivilized? Whereas, in the case of ‘boycott’ accompanying Laal Singh Chadha, it did not entail enforced cancellations or violence.

Advertisement

It may well be argued that the ‘boycott’ of this movie was questionably between the realms of plain ‘boycott’ (which ought to be any citizen’s right) and the more debatable space of unwarranted callouts from the past that were cherry-picked to make a political narrative. Be that as it may, since it entailed a peaceful expression of disagreement with a certain set of people (irrespective, if for the right or wrong reasons), it remains a perfectly democratic and civilized manner of disagreement. The Indian freedom movement itself is characteristic of ‘boycott’ as a means of moral protest, with Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protests and accompanying civil disobedience exemplifying this. The Salt Satyagraha (Satya meaning ‘truth’ and agraha meaning ‘polite insistence’) or Dandi March can be viewed from the prism of a modern day ‘boycott’ against the then prevailing salt laws by millions of Indians.

This form of civil disobedience was to influence other activists like James Bevel, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela etc. However, basic civility, truthfulness and non-violence are necessary ingredients of a noble ‘boycott’ as Mahatma Gandhi himself noted, “In the application of satyagraha, I discovered in the earliest stages that pursuit of truth did not admit of violence being inflicted on one’s opponent but that he must be weaned from error by patience and compassion. For what appears to be the truth to the one may appear to be an error to the other.” Clearly, the blood lusting aspiration of Hadi Matar (Rushdie’s attacker) was anything but a moral ‘boycott’ ~ it was taking disagreement towards unforgivable violence. But a simple ‘boycott’ of any creative product like a movie, ought to be par for course in a democracy. It almost echoes Salman Rushdie’s statement, “Two things form the bedrock of any open society ~ freedom of expression and rule of law. If you don’t have those things, you don’t have a free country”.

In the case of the ‘boycott’ of the movie in question ~ the moviemakers and the audiences were well within legitimate rights to accept or reject that posited freedom of expression i.e., the movie, and the subsequent action of willful abstinence from viewing the same i.e. ‘boycott’, whilst conforming to all laid down tenets of law. A ‘boycott’ predicated on falsehood, vested political/religious narrative and malintent is a more complicated turf as it is essentially without noble underpinnings (unlike the Satyagraha). However, even those situations, unfair as they may be, cannot justify violent counter-reactions. It is empirically proven that most banned books that are feverishly opposed by boorish mobs remain unread by them as they prefer to remain in the throes of partisan passions and bigotry.

Even Rushdie’s attacker (who wasn’t even born when the fatwa against the author was issued in 1989) is believed to have ‘only read two pages!’ Closer home, Jaswant Singh faced the wrath of his own partisan ignoramuses within, as the upright scholar-soldier-statesman had presciently forewarned, “The day we start banning books, we are banning thinking”. In Jaswant Singh’s case, it wasn’t a ‘boycott’ (as it ought to have been, at best, by those who disagreed with him) but a state imposed ‘ban’ (though subsequently lifted by the Courts).

It again reflected the smallness-of-spirit by the state, which often ends up empowering partisan cadres to a regrettable sense of entitlement and the appropriation of law, onto themselves. The state should be very careful in ‘banning’ (as the Government of India did with Salman Rushdie in 1989) and leave it to the people to ‘boycott’ at best, if they so desire, as it ought to be in a civilized society. There is always an invariable hand of political parties (in Government or in opposition) to fan dangerous passions by seeking ‘bans’, that can subsequently get out of hand. The curse of ‘bans’ is equally attributable to both the left and the right side of polarised politics; they have constantly led the assault on freedom of speech (and ironically even defended the same) whenever it suited their specific agenda and partisan narrative. However, it is important to delink the ‘bans’ (state supported) from ‘boycott’ (which is an individual or collective action), ~ as ‘boycotts’ are clearly the more civilized and democratic means of protesting than bans, coercion, intimidation and surely, physical violence. It gets conveniently forgotten that you always have the right to offend and be offended, but you never have the right to never be offended ~ certainly not to a point of taking law into your hands, whatever be the situation.

A version of this story appears in the print edition of the September 4, 2022, issue.

The writer is Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), and former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry