Tamil Nadu govt wants ‘Sarkar’ maker to promise he’ll never criticise them: Never mind Constitution, censor board
A government allowing protesters to run riot shows it in a far worse light than any movie can.
While Vijay-starrer Sarkar continues to make money, though movie critics are unimpressed with it, the drama playing out over it outside the theatres is even more gripping.
Sarkar, which released on November 7, upset the AIADMK— the party in power in Tamil Nadu — majorly for its criticism of the government’s freebie scheme, and for an apparent reference to the late Jayalalithaa. The party cadre went about tearing up the movie’s posters and banners.
In response, Vijay’s fans burnt up freebies distributed to them by the government.
Compilation of many such videos of burning and breaking freebies of TN government by Vijay Fans. Don't miss any of these mischievous activities. Funny to watch but very sad to see my state is filled with fools to be influenced by actors with vested interests. #Sarkar pic.twitter.com/XROWKJWju4
— Saiganesh (@im_saiganesh) November 9, 2018
The Tamil Nadu government understandably wishes to avoid such disturbances. It seems to have decided that prevention is the best cure. Thus, on November 27, it made a submission in the Madras high court that the movie director, A R Murugadoss, must promise he’ll never criticise the government again.
“He is an experienced director and he must understand the impact such scenes create among the public. He must give such undertaking before seeking any relief,” public prosecutor A Natarajan said in the court.
The solution is neat, except that it infringes upon freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, takes the responsibility of preventing disturbances from the government, and makes very light indeed of the Central Board of Film Certification, whose entire job is to decide if a movie is fit to be shown to the public.
There is more that is bizarre here. The case came up in court because Murugadoss filed for anticipatory bail, claiming the police had come to his house to arrest him. The police, however, said they could not arrest Murugadoss because there was no FIR against him.
But an FIR had indeed been filed against Murugadoss, by a person named Devarajan, who wanted him booked under acts on terrorism.
The court granted the director protection from arrest till November 27, when his case was to be heard again. It was at this hearing that the government made its unique demand.
Meanwhile, the AIADMK’s opposition to the movie piqued interest in it, and actually made people flock to theatres for a film which is not a cinematic marvel by any standards.
Produced by Sun Pictures — which is owned by DMK leader Dayanidhi Maran’s brother Kalanithi Maran — Sarkar does take direct potshots at the AIADMK.
In the movie, Vijay’s character, a bigshot CEO, returns from the US to cast his vote, only to find that a “proxy’ had already voted for him. He then turns reformer, taking on the corrupt system and power-hungry politicians. The character is named Sundar — yes, after Google CEO Sundar Pichai. A lawyer in the movie, based on Ram Jethmalani, is named Jethmalani.
It was another such unsubtle reference — a less-than-virtuous politician named Komalavalli, Jayalalithaa’s birth name — that irked the AIADMK, along with a scene where a character sets fire to freebies distributed by the government.
There have been speculations that actor Vijay might join politics, and the movie has also been called a propaganda vehicle for his own political ambitions.
The AIADMK, thus, has legitimate reasons to be upset. But that does not allow it to violently protest against the movie after its release. The government run by the party should have cracked down on the protesters. Instead, its MLAs led demonstrations.
The protests reached a point where night shows of the movie had to be cancelled in several theatres, and the makers agreed to delete some scenes. This breakdown of law and order, and the movie-makers having to capitulate to violence, shows the government in a far worse light than any movie can ever do.
Also, it makes a mockery of the censor board, which had duly certified and cleared the film.
Politicians taking offence to movies is not new. Just last year, Vijay’s Mersal had run into trouble with the BJP because it criticised the GST, and the party had claimed the actor was “vilifying the government because he was a Christian”.
The absurd theatre over Padmaavat raged on for months.
When parties support such protests, they show that their political agenda matters more to them than upholding the Constitution and not disturbing law and order. When governments fail to quell such protests, they show they are just not good at doing their job of upholding law and order.
But a government actually asking a moviemaker in a court of law to promise he won’t criticise it again is a bizarre step ahead.
Murugadoss has refused to give such an undertaking. Once again, the AIADMK government has managed to make him a hero, and opened itself to criticism even from those who have not watched the movie.