Context: Four things happened recently. Priyanka Chopra, now a successful(?) Hollywood actor, played a major role in a series that had Hindu nationalists as the main antagonists. An uproar followed (because, why not?). She (and her studio) apologised (after all, they are concerned about the very market they are targeting by casting her). And then, for absolutely no reason, a celebrity chef from the UAE waded into the controversy by making a not just what could be passed as a pro-Hindu statement, but also added, for reasons known to anyone familiar with what’s been happening in India lately, an anti-Muslim angle to it. Hell broke loose. This is my opinion.
India is a democracy, and we are guaranteed freedom of expression by the Constitution. More so, I am an Indian. So, I will always fight for this right in my country.
On the other hand, the UAE has a constitution that specifically states the Islamic Sharia to be the “primary source of legislation.” I am also not an Emirati (UAE citizen). And while I would want every country in the world to be a free, democratic society, I have no desire to fight for the rights of a celebrity in the UAE fighting another celebrity in the USA on Twitter, even if both of them were Indians by passport (which they aren’t).
If this is about FoE, the right forum to take this up would be the UN, where countries such as India and the USA could (and do) insist on the acceptance and the enforcement of human rights in all the countries across the world. Unfortunately, for countries that are actually founded on the basis of religion or a particular genetic strain of royal lineage will never accept it because doing so would mean an effective negation of their raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean we should give up. That only means that it is highly unlikely.
So, while I agree that everyone ought to have the freedom to express themselves and even offend others in the process, within broad limits (defamation, incitement to violence, bullying etc) as set generally by free democracies across the world, I can only point to the differences between an artist who has only participated in the performance of an art form of someone else’s creation in the USA (with the First Amendment) or India (with Article 19) apologising because she thinks it will affect her popularity, and hence livelihood…and another artist (if we can call a celebrity chef that. I would.) who has chosen to live in a country that specifically adheres to the very ideology/principle he wishes to insult publicly and does, in fact, trace its very origins and existence to it, and who chooses to, with the full knowledge of the repercussions, break the law, however anachronistic and wrong.
The truth is that they are not social justice warriors. They are not revolutionaries. They do not need your support. because for one, they do not represent the principles which you think they do. When you support Priyanka’s right to act in whatever she wants, you are not being a revolutionary rebel. Ditto Atul’s right to say what he wants.
So, stop believing this is some kind of public service or an inquilabi act on your part.
As for Priyanka, she is protecting her livelihood by apologising, since she knows that if you take the Indian market out from her viewership, there’s no reason at the moment to hire her as an actress. Swara was right in stating that Bollywood personalities have no spine for a reason and that has to do with commerce. I do not grudge them that. I do not hate AB for not taking political stands, even when I love Swara or Prakash Raj for doing it.
About Atul, he chose the country with his eyes open. He tweeted with them open too (I am guessing). If he had a problem with the lack of freedoms in the UAE, this was the worst way to highlight them. That is because this (his tweet) wasn’t about FoE for him. It was pure and simple hatred and bigotry. This is a major difference, just in case you are looking for one, between Priyanka who was just doing her job within the limits laid down by the society she has chosen as her home, and Atul, who went out of his way to do something patently illegal and stupid, given that he too had chosen to be where he was. Priyanka got caught in the crossfire for just doing what she does. Atul brought it upon him.
One is an opportunist and one is a bigot. But if I had to choose who to defend, it would be Priyanka, for reasons stated above.
That said, let me be clear: I have no sympathies for either.
