Abhijit Iyer-Mitra has been in prison for almost a month now. The latest development in a long and lamentable sequence of events is that the Odisha Assembly has passed a motion to forgive Iyer-Mitra, following his apology. However, the value of this for the jailed defence analyst is questionable because the decision pertaining to his release is up to the courts.

Before going forward, let’s quickly revisit the reasons for Iyer-Mitra’s arrest and imprisonment. On September 16, Iyer-Mitra had tweeted a video satirising the attitude of those who adopt Hinduism as an essentialist faith that celebrates prudish behaviour. In doing so, he attacks, with humour, the idea that such prudishness has its roots in the country’s traditions. For this, Iyer-Mitra has been booked under different sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Another case was filed on the basis of an older exchange of tweets between Iyer-Mitra and other Twitter users.

These tweets led to the unfolding of events that would be hilarious if they were not so obviously unfortunate. First, there was the ludicrous news that Iyer-Mitra was arrested on account of tweets on rosogollas. This would not do for the Odisha police. However much they do or do not feel that Odisha should be the state which can stake claim to the rosogolla, they can hardly be seen as arresting people on such accounts. On October 27,  they issued a statement denying that Iyer-Mitra was arrested for his Twitter post on rosogolla. Rather, the Odisha Police stated that the journalist was arrested for his criticism of Odisha, its people, Lord Jagannath, the Konark temple and also Odisha lawmakers.

One would be at a loss when wondering what Lord Jagannath would make of all this. Described as a divine prankster in his childhood and adolescence, the god’s predilection for humour continued well into adulthood. This is best illustrated by the story of how he decided to satisfy the hunger of a group of quick-tempered saints (Durvasa, the angriest, was also prone to curses) by eating a single grain of rice. But the Odisha Police and judiciary have their own Lord Jagannath in mind—one who whispers into their ears that they must arrest and imprison a man who suggests in jest that the Lord belonged, in reality, to Kolkata. Yes, that same evil city that dared to lay claim to the rosogolla.

Things are not funny anymore.

One would imagine that the law and order establishment in Odisha would have other concerns to tend to. A cursory Google search will reveal that human trafficking has become a concern in the state.  This October, a nine-year-old was decapitated in a case suspected to be one of human sacrifice. In November, robbers broke into a house and abducted and raped a nine-year-old girl. Also, the National Human Rights Commission recently slammed the Odisha Police for under-reporting encounter deaths. But no. A man who dares to indulge in satire or humour must be dealt with first. Priorities are priorities.

It is worthwhile to note that the police and judiciary are empowered by law. They may take a more lenient view of this law and—in the interest of free speech and common sense—many police officials and judges do. However, this is entirely subject to their discretion. This law today includes in its ambit some ridiculous provisions on obscenity, outraging religious feeling and defamation. To get a better sense of how the sum and substance of colonial-era provisions are intrinsically tilted against freedom of expression in the country, read PEN International’s report on the same.

Iyer-Mitra’s arrest has led—as most events do in this country—to sparring between those called “Right-wing” and those believed to belong to the liberal side of the spectrum. Iyer-Mitra is seen as being squarely in the middle of the Right side. Members of the Right have accused the Left of not outraging enough over Iyer-Mitra’s arrest. (This is unfounded because the Left has outraged and is continuing to do so.) The Left, while condemning Iyer-Mitra’s arrest and incarceration and standing up for his rights has also pointed out instances in the past where Iyer-Mitra himself called for the arrest and imprisonment of thinkers and activists.

The nuance of discourse from the Right has been interesting, to say the least. Towards the end of the video Iyer-Mitra posted from the Konark temple, he made a dig at voices who tend to blame everything unpalatable on some unfounded Muslim-conspiracy theory: “Ye Musalmaanon ka saazish hai (this is a Muslim conspiracy)”. He ended by saying: “Jai Shri Ram, humarein Ram mandir mein aise ashleel statuein nahin hoga (All praise Shri Ram, our Ram mandir won’t have such obscene statues).” Thus, again, through humour and satire, Iyer-Mitra raised questions on the idea of an essentialist Hindu culture that many proponents of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement highlight. How much of this was premeditated and how much arose in the spur of the moment? Only Iyer-Mitra can tell you. But it’s there for all to see. Could this be the reason for quite a few voices on the Right remaining silent on Iyer-Mitra’s arrest and imprisonment?

The barebones of the discourse from the Left, on the other hand, has boiled down to questions such as: What if a liberal had joked about these temples? Is Abhijeet Iyer-Mitra actually a free speech martyr? Such questions, while perhaps pertinent for some, are not the questions of the hour. The hour has two truths.

One, that a person who belongs to the Right-wing satirising the cultural essentialism of many of its members is rare, and holds more weight than a self-professed liberal doing so. This is because this criticism, to them, seems to come from one of their own. Two, if Iyer-Mitra’s case becomes a precedent for writers and journalists in this country, then many of us are on our way to becoming free speech martyrs for most things we say so casually nowadays. And those who have experienced martyrdom will tell you that it’s a phenomenon best observed in history. The martyrs belong to dark ages. We had presumed to have left the dark ages behind us. For now, let us stay focused on trying to keep it that way.

Or rather, let me commit the audacity of modifying Bertolt Brecht. He had said:

“In the dark times
Will there also be singing?
Yes, there will also be singing.
About the dark times.”

Let’s rephrase this:

“In the dark times
Will there also be singing?
No, there will not be singing.
Because,
In the truly dark times
No one will be able to sing.”

Where the mind is full of fear, the mouth will not crack a joke. Iyer-Mitra’s satire has devolved into tragicomedy, with the state and the judiciary playing their roles in it. Let us fight to ensure it doesn’t become a tragedy all the way.