It has been a few days since the controversy over the new film ‘Thug Life’ by leading actor, producer, and director Kamal Haasan began. Kannada language activists staged protests in Bengaluru, threatening not to allow the film to be released. Interestingly, these troubles have nothing to do with the content of ‘Thug Life.’ Kamal Haasan has had the experience of facing a lot of criticism and backlash following at least five of his previous films which were marred by controversies, but that was all about the film. He faced all such opposition, staying firm on convictions, but this time he suffered an interim setback. However, as a great relief came the Supreme Court to his aid. Although the Court has not given a final verdict, the ban imposed by the Karnataka High Court was lifted.
Also read: Karnataka distributor reluctant to release 'Thug Life’, despite SC relief
Ahead of the release of the film, which was produced by prominent director Mani Ratnam after a gap of 38 years of working with Kamal Haasan, it was the latter's comment to actor Sivaraj Kumar on May 24, "Your language (Kannada) originated from Tamil," that infuriated those who saw themselves as Kannada language lovers. They protested saying that Kamal had insulted the mother tongue of Kannada people and that they would boycott ‘Thug Life’ and that it would not be allowed to be shown in theatres. Pro-Kannada language groups, prominent among them being an organisation called Kannada Raksha Vedi, have demanded an apology from Kamal. The vandalism of the film's posters being torn down and the burning of Kamal's effigy were captured on video and widely circulated on social media. Threats against the screening of the film in theatres also began. Subsequently, Kannada and Culture Minister Thankatagi Shivaraj wrote a letter to the Karnataka Film Chambers of Commerce, warning that if an apology is not made before May 30, all Kamal films will be banned. However, Kamal stood firm, saying that he did not need to apologise, that he was only expressing his opinion, and that he did not show any disrespect to Kannada.
Also read: Karnataka HC slams Kamal Haasan over Kannada row, seeks apology
Kamal approached the Karnataka High Court against the Chamber decision but did not get a favourable decision. The court had reasoned that an apology would ease the hurt caused to public sentiment and asked why the actor could not make an apology. Then a public interest litigation filed by a lawyer is currently being considered in the Supreme Court. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan Malhotra has flayed the High Court's stand since the beginning. The bench opined that a film that has been approved by the Censor Board cannot be banned just because it does not tally with the opinions or preferences of some people. The court, which said that a mob cannot hold the rule of law hostage, also warned that ‘gangs cannot be allowed to decide what should be shown in theatres’. The court ruled that if someone makes a statement, it should be countered with another statement and that the theatres should not be threatened to be burned down. The Supreme Court has also sought the state government’s position on the power of the chamber to recommend a ban. The court's tone indicates that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Kamal's freedom.
Also read: KFCC threatens to ban Kamal Haasan’s Thug Life in Karnataka; seeks apology
It is a settled constitutional principle that there can be reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression. And normally, any one would take a stand on whether it is in their favor or not. Here, Kamal Haasan has just expressed an opinion about language. A discussion that can be called an interpretation related to linguistic history. However, there are still instances where, through provocative statements, the sentiments of different religious groups are hurt and falsehoods spread, which either go unnoticed or are ignored by governments and courts. There are also negative film experiences that, through inaccurate portrayals and distorted narratives, cause disaffection against sections of the population and create animosity. And it is because ambiguities arise when authorities adopt discriminatory positions that similar disputes arise again and again. However, as the Supreme Court pointed out in this case, what is paramount is the rule of law. The exercise of power by political brinkmanship should not be allowed. Disregarding this core principle is the reason why the Supreme Court sharply criticised the High Court's stance. In the final analysis, the Court, which spoke up against this mob justice, stands as a silver lining in the middle of this case.
Also read: Kamal Haasan's 'Kannada born from Tamil' remark sparks outrage