Pro-Hindu groups and BJP workers tried to disrupt Prakash Raj’s appearance in Dharwad, smearing his poster and attempting to storm the venue over remarks he had not even made. The episode exposes how extremist politics replaces debate with intimidation. Police detained several protesters as Raj said he was unsurprised.
An inked poster is a trivial act of vandalism, but the protest against the actor Prakash Raj in Dharwad is far more sinister. It is indicative of the increasingly popular belief that it is up to political mobs to decide who can speak.
The protesters, consisting of Pro-Hindu groups and BJP workers, reportedly waited outside the Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha, where Prakash Raj was expected to address the “Samudaya Jagatha Towards Humanity” program. Some of them tried to encircle the man and force him inside. Their explanation is particularly telling – they were worried that Prakash Raj might say something against Hinduism.
This is the mentality of extremists who are accusing, punishing, and intimidating before anyone has made any statements that should have been responded to rationally. The protesters were not reacting to anything Raj said during the event; they were trying to prevent the man from making comments they considered offensive.
There is no excuse for such preemptive censorship in a democratic country. No matter what people call themselves, they cannot claim that they own the religion or can speak on behalf of all followers of Hinduism. Religion practiced peacefully by millions of people cannot be identified with the rage of political gangs vandalizing posters and intimidating gatherings.
The involvement of BJP workers in the incident makes the situation even more frightening. Parties are free to criticize individuals and express their dissatisfaction with views that are unacceptable to them. But when the workers of a certain party take part in disruption of any event, the thin line between democracy and intimidation becomes blurred. No political party has the right to call itself democratic when it uses its followers to infringe on someone’s rights.
Fortunately, the police prevented the situation from turning into a catastrophe and apprehended several demonstrators. However, this is not the solution to the main problem – political leaders have to publicly condemn the intimidating acts committed in their names, institutions have to protect the people invited to speak and the law has to be applied impartially despite the religious and political affiliation of a mob.
Prakash Raj’s words that he is “not surprised” make every person living in a democratic country think about it. This means that writers, actors, journalists and researchers become accustomed to threats of violence for expressing an independent opinion.
It is necessary to distinguish criticism of religious fanaticism from hostility towards Hindus as a nation. Criticizing religious extremists does not mean being hostile to the religion or its ordinary citizens – the issue is political extremists who use religion to intimidate those who disagree with them. Equating a religion with its political representatives is nothing but strengthening those who try to control the religious identity of people.
Being a democratic country does not mean that all its citizens have to share the same opinions, including the opinion of Prakash Raj. Everyone has the right to answer Raj’s words with his or her own words. People who are offended by the actor’s opinion may criticize and argue with him or hold a peaceful protest outside the venue.
India will lose its multiculturalism if the mobs are allowed to decide what people can say.
