In the past few days, tiatrist John D’ Silva has been in the news for all
the wrong reasons. Internet and social networking platforms like Facebook
and whatsapp have been abuzz with debates and discussions over his actions.
It all started when John took offence over his image being used to parody
the Government and expressed his disgust to the media over it. To make
matters worse, he went to the extent of filing an FIR against Prashant
Parab, the creator of the Internet meme. Is John right to act this way or
is his reaction an over the top one?

Those familiar with social networking platforms will agree his reactions
are perplexing, to put it mildly. This is something so trivial which he
could easily have ignored but he acted otherwise. In his video interview to
the Press, he has appeared more like a villain and not like the fun going
person he is on stage. Many have been left wondering why he has reacted in
such a furious manner. Is it just because of some felicitations or favours
from politicians or is he going to be a candidate in the upcoming
elections? Has this famed artist lost his voice or has he crawled when
asked to bend?

As John is a comedian/ humorist and associated in the tiatr Industry for
long, many have found his actions ironical and hypocritical. The artist's
only grievance is that his image had been used to parody the government
without his permission. But is this such a big deal? John perhaps may be
unaware but this is exactly how the Internet and social media works
nowadays. There are so many parodies, jokes or animation videos on
celebrities that circulate over such networks and the modern generation
love them. Celebrities do not mind this as it gives them good publicity
also. Anyone who has seen Prashant's meme will agree it is an innocuous
one. It is plain humour. Such parodies, spoofs, cartoons or jokes on
celebrities are nothing new and not unlawful as long as they are not
obscene, morally depraving or defamatory.

What provisions of law has this internet meme violated so as to warrant
filing an FIR against Prashant? The great Nobel laureate Rabindranath
Tagore has taught us to speak without fear and hold the mind high. Free
Speech and expression has a sacrosanct place in a democracy and needs to be
protected from complaints of frivolous or oversensitive nature. There can
be no two different opinions about this. Someone like John, who is a
comedian and a humorist, should have known this all the more since he's a
part of the tiatr Industry and makes his living making fun of others. Some
of his satires, comedy clips, songs and videos are far more insulting and
obscene. Should the others retaliate and file complaints against him or
against other artists?

John has done a huge disservice to the tiatr Industry by complaining and
filing an FIR. Even if he disagreed with the content of that meme, he could
have reacted in a much more sensible manner and not taken the matter to the
Police. Free Speech is guaranteed to us under Article 19(1) with reasonable
restrictions under 19(2). Prashant's post can hardly be considered to fall
within the scope of obscene, lascivious, lewd, defamatory or filthy which
are the restrictions under 19(2). And the standard of determining what is
lawful and not is changing day by day. Perhaps few decades back, using real
pictures of celebrities may have been an offence but it is no longer so
now. Times are moving forward and society is changing. Free speech is
interpreted in a much more liberal manner today. Will an ordinary reader of
common sense and prudence really believe that John and Selvy actually
uttered those words or will they not know it is just plain humour to make a
subtle point? And what is all this ado about, 3 LED bulbs? Can a Government
or its actions or schemes not be beyond criticism? Ha!

This is an issue which needs to be interpreted from the perspective of
today's generation where internet memes are a reality. Cyber or smart phone
users receive such images regularly on a day to day basis. They laugh, pass
a few comments, have discussions on cyber groups and then move on to the
next issue. A harmless meme must never be blown out into a major issue.  If
every celebrity on who a harmless spoof or a cartoon or a parody were to
file an FIR, then the system itself will be crippled. No Nation or its
people must lose their sense of humour, and if they do then the
repercussions can be devastating. At times, humour can offend but let's not
forget it also makes us laugh.

The famed artist Pablo Picasso said, “Art is never chaste. It ought to be
forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not
sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not
art.” Cartoons, caricatures, parodies, spoofs and other artistic forms of
humorous expression fall within the domain of 19(1) and taking offence to
these on flimsy grounds is a bad trend which will take the society
backwards. Furthermore, such memes on celebrities, politicians and other
famous personalities circulate all over the Internet and on social media
platforms like whatsapp. So long as such memes are not obscene or
defamatory, they are entirely legal and well protected under the fair use
doctrine enshrined under section 52(1)(a) of the Indian Copyright Act. Does
Modi or Rahul Gandhi or Parrikar or Churchill or Alia Bhatt file a
complaint each time a joke or an Internet meme or a funny mimicry
circulates over social media on them? Sometimes they are at the receiving
end but it also gives them good publicity and keeps them in the limelight.
That is the price one has to pay for being a celebrity, for good or bad.
Laughter is the best medicine and a few laughs can never be bad.

Being offended by some form of artistic expression that we see or hear per
se is not a crime. An artistic expression has to be more than just
offensive for it to be a crime. It has to be obscene, lascivious, lewd or
filthy or of an indecent character or defamatory. That is the well settled
law of the land. Prashant's post is nothing of that sort. There is no
malice in it. It is just a simple artistic expression used by him to make a
subtle point critiquing the Government’s LED bulb scheme.There is no direct
criticism also. So why so much fuss?

Artists are creative people with special gifts and talent. They must set a
good example for others and not wrong ones. John is one such talented
artist but his reaction on this issue is hypocritical and the public have
rightly criticised him for it. It is in his, as well as the tiatr
industry’s interest, that he withdraws the complaint. Otherwise it will set
a bad trend and erring politicians who are criticised in tiatrs may file
similar FIRs and then ask, “If you can be offended, why can’t we?”

regards,
Sandeep Heble
Ph - 9326129171

Reply via email to