‘Heckler’s veto’, ‘message to Muslims’: Hindu edit, IE op-ed on Munawar Faruqui’s ‘retirement’

As Munawar Faruqui hinted at a retirement from his stand-up comedy career due to the cancellation of multiple shows amid threats, the Hindu, Indian Express and Telegraph were the only prominent English dailies to carry editorials and opinions on liberty in a reference to the comedian’s decision.

In an editorial titled “Protect, don’t pander: On suppression of free speech”, the Hindu’s editorial staff noted that “suppression of free speech by yielding to threats has become an unfortunate norm”.

Talking about the cancellation of Faruqui’s show in Bengaluru, the Hindu observed that the “‘heckler’s veto’ seems to be winning repeatedly”. It mentioned that the comedian has been systemically targeted since his arrest in Indore, and his shows cancelled in multiple states by the local police citing “fears of violence” or “disruption of peace and harmony”.

“It is a telling commentary on the state of free speech in the country that anyone can be silenced anywhere by the threats posed by violent and vociferous groups that no regime in the country seems to be able to rein in,” stated the editorial.

The Hindu mentioned the Supreme Court’s observation in the S Rangarajan etc. vs P Jagjivan Ram (1989) case that suppressing free speech in response to a threat of demonstration or protest “would be tantamount to negation of the rule of law”.

While the Hindu’s editorial focussed on freedom of speech, an op-ed in the Indian Express noted the communal tint in the repeated protests against the comedian.

“An example is being made of the comedian to send the chilling message to all Muslim that they cannot expect to live their lives in India in their way,” activist and DU professor Apoorvanand wrote in a piece titled “Munawar Faruqui is not being bullied for his jokes, but for his faith”.

The op-ed compared Faruqui’s tweet to Manet and Gustave Courbet who had to face “insults and punishment for their realistic challenge to the art establishment”. However, the op-ed claimed that it isn’t Faruqui’s art and humour that has irked “Hindus”.

“We must accept that it is Munawar Faruqui, a Muslim, who is under attack. For being a Muslim. For the audacity to smile and stand upright.”

The attack is very clear and calculated, wrote Apoorvanand. “In this case, a cold decision seems to have been made that an example will be made of Faruqui — and through him, a message sent to all Muslims: They should not expect to live their lives, their way, in India. They are at the mercy of the radicals of the RSS network.”

The op-ed claimed that the Bangalore police’s reasons to cancel the show – that many states have cancelled Faruqui’s events and he is a controversial figure – is a lie. “No state in India has banned his shows. It is the threat of violence by organisations like the Bajrang Dal and the refusal of the police to give security that forced the organisers in different states to withdraw.”

Stating that comedy is not Faruqui’s hobby but his livelihood, the article mentioned that the refusal to let him make a living puts him in the same group as “the fruit-seller who would not be allowed in Hindu localities”. It claimed that violent groups and RSS affiliates are the ones disrupting the peace, rather than hypothetical jokes that Fauqui may or may not crack.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph published similar opinions in an editorial titled “Surly India: An authoritarian polity finds comedy allergic” on November 30.

The show’s cancellation “raises laughs about India’s claims of being a mature democracy that is able to laugh at its follies”, the paper’s editorial staff wrote. It focussed on freedom of expression and speech being suppressed for comedians.

“Incidentally, New India’s war on comedy has had other victims: Vir Das, Kiku Sharda, Agrima Joshua, Kunal Kamra and many others have been subjected to censorship, ranging from intimidation, contempt cases, threats of violence and even jail terms.”

The editorial stated that this is an “authoritarian issue”. “Throughout history humour and satire have retained elements of resistance against a totalitarian ethic”.