AAMIR BACHAO?

AAMIR ISSUE and freedom of expression

a non-bollywood, non-political view

TV channels and newspapers have extensively carried interviews by Aamir Khan on the Narmada issue in which he a) defended his right to freedom of expression and b) claimed that he had only talked of redressing the plight of the displaced persons, like any other person concerned for the well-being of adivasis, farmers and poor people would do. He also said that he was only reiterating what the Supreme Court said in this regard.

It is true that he, like any other person in a democracy, has the freedom of speech and expression. It is also true that he appeared to be talking only about rehabilitation.

However, the point of view of the people of Gujarat that, perhaps, could not be clearly presented, needs to be understood in context. There is a long background and history leading to the present feelings of people in Gujarat.

• The Narmada project was initiated nearly 45 years back in 1961. For various reasons related to government decision making and other obstructions, the project has till today not seen the light of day.

• The project has a tremendous significance for Gujarat and the people see it as the key to the development, prosperity and growth of their agriculture as well as industry, besides being a source of water for their thirsty millions.
  
• The delay in implementation has had a unimaginable adverse impact on not only the costs of the project, which have escalated tremendously, but also delays in getting its benefits, which also carry a massive cost in terms of delayed development.
  
• The delays have been compounded by various agitations carried on over the years and still being carried on by Narmada Bachao Andolan.
  
• NBA, whose actions have established its identity as an anti-large development, anti-dam movement, has been agitating since 1986 and has been instrumental in causing serious impediments in the implementation of the project at every stage.
  Over the years, NBA has resorted to every available means, to stall and stop the project. A more detailed overall perspective can be found here and here and here. Also see the Supreme Court decision on the cases filed by NBA and others:

• Unfortunately, apparently without having any background of the project and NBA’s past role in delays on the project, Aamir Khan chose to join and speak from the NBA platform, effectively identifying himself with NBA.
  
• The fasts and agitation spearheaded by a group of professional protestors of NBA ostensibly to support rehabilitation, were undertaken to put pressure on the government as well as even the Supreme Court, which was already seized of the matter FOR THE MAIN PURPOSE OF STOPPING WORK ON THE DAM not for rehabilitation. Aamir would have logically ascertained cause of the NBA agitation and known that the purpose of their agitation at that time was to stop construction.
  
• Aamir chose to join the agitation at that point of time. He would certainly be aware that his celebrity status would provide a strong impetus to the NBA banner. Therefore, even if he himself might not have said anything about stopping the dam, the effect is the same as if he had done so. Even being charitable and assuming that he was unaware of the objectives of NBA, he is responsible for the consequences of joining without being aware.
  
• The project is at a critical stage and with NBA’s relentless efforts to STOP the construction on the project; further delays would simply be disastrous for the country and Gujarat in particular. The project is designed to benefit four states in which over one fourth of the country's population lives.
  
• Considering the extremely sensitive and delicate stage of the matter, it is but natural for the people to fear that his actions on the back of NBA platform would further compound and lend strength to NBA’s efforts, leading to the project being scuttled.
  
• Therefore, his actions are justifiably seen as completely against the interests of Narmada project even if he did not utter a word about stopping the dam. His ill-timed comments from the platform of NBA, which is recognized by all those who have followed the developments over the years as being fundamentally anti-project, have naturally invited the anger that he is facing now. Even his comments on rehabilitation were apparently based on the NBA’s contentions, which have been seriously disputed in the Supreme Court.
  
• In his defense, Aamir Khan also vainly dragged Supreme Court into the issue by saying that he was only repeating what Supreme Court was saying. It should be remembered that whatever was said as regards rehabilitation by the Supreme Court while deciding the NBA case was logical and it could hardly have said that it should not be done. It is not quite correct to hide behind the Supreme Court while defending what he said during the NBA agitation.
  
• It is futile to claim freedom to exercise the right of speech without responsibility and without adequate knowledge, from a platform whose AVOWED PURPOSE FOR THE AGITATION AND FAST WAS TO STOP WORK ON RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THE DAM.

In the above background, it is naïve or deliberately misleading of Aamir Khan to keep claiming that he has not said anything against the dam but only spoke and will continue to speak about rehabilitation.

Every citizen, including Aamir, has a right to freely express his or her opinion and views on any matter, including the Narmada project.

At the same time, all those who are offended by HIS actions, according to their own perspective, have a similar freedom and right to express their unhappiness in speech or actions against his actions, as long as they do this within the confines of the law. This right is all the more stronger for the millions whose lifelines could be threatened by further delays in the project. It is not material whether the views are expressed by a hundred or a thousand or a million voices.

Some of those who support Aamir Khan have also expressed a view that those opposing his actions are guilty of ‘intolerance’ not fit in a democracy. This is an unfortunate view. It is to be remembered that the freedoms of speech and expression are essentially subjective matters. The essence of the freedom is to allow an individual to express a view in the way he or she sees it. Similarly, the definitions of ‘tolerance’ and ‘intolerance’ are also a matter of subjectivity and depend upon the facts and circumstances of each situation and the individual. An arbitrary level of tolerance and at what stage tolerance turns to intolerance cannot be dictated by others, although they may express their views of what they consider intolerance. Tolerance and intolerance as far as expression of views is concerned, cannot be defined in isolation; it has to have a relation to the situation and context. History, including that of India is replete with examples of events that would be within the limits of tolerance in normal circumstances but which resulted in strong reactions. Even in day-to-day life, innocuous actions sometimes result in unexpected responses, which ordinarily would be regarded as intolerant reactions.

It is interesting to examine this aspect in the present situation. On the one hand, are people who have been suffering for decades due to the delays in completion of a development work that is a national project – a project that is likely to bring succor to millions by way of supply of drinking and irrigation water and power. These are the people who have been waiting patiently for all these years for the project to come to fruition but which some people are hell-bent to sabotage one way or the other. Every delay that occurs takes these people farther away from their dreams and denies them the basic needs like water. Every delay also results in massive cost increases, which affect the entire country and the tax - payers. For any person of reasonable understanding of what a development project of such magnitude means for the country and for the people, it should be clear where the larger good lies. On the other hand, there are people who are agitated and angry and feel aggrieved because a film is not shown in one part of the country. These are the people who cry foul and claim that those who oppose Aamir are ‘intolerant’. Only those who have a sense of balance and maturity can discriminate and understand as to whose reactions display intolerance.

The subjective nature of the definition of ‘intolerance’ can be shown by an illustration: When Aamir made his remarks at the time of the NBA agitation, a certain film maker opposed these strongly, questioning Aamir’s right to speak in this regard. When Aamir, apparently trying to find ways to show how equally concerned he was for other causes, offered to speak for the cause of displaced Kashmiri pundits, the filmmaker suddenly found it necessary to come out strongly to support Aamir the very next day.

If because of the controversy created by Aamir, the producer and others connected with Aamir’s film are suffering, it is incidental and unfortunate, but they can blame and look only to the source of the problem to find a solution. In the meantime, they can take solace in the fact that the people who are supposed to benefit from the Narmada project have suffered untold hardships and a greater loss than theirs over the years, also due to the actions of NBA whose platform Aamir used to express his wise humanitarian concerns. These unfortunate people will continue to suffer these hardships and losses long after those connected with the film have made their millions, a part of which they want to make from Gujarat.

The right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed to all. However, the exercise of that right carries with it the responsibility to bear the consequences. This applies not only to Aamir but also to those who may express their feelings in his favor or against him.

It is ironic that people who show overwhelming concern for the rights and plight of those who are unable to exhibit a film, are completely oblivious of or indifferent to the rights and fate of those who have been all along deprived of the fruits of a development project that may well take half a century before it is completed.

Perhaps, according to those who cry hoarse based on their own notions of undemocratic and intolerant action, that is how the largest democracy in the world is supposed to function.