India is actually a civilized nation even though the current ban would suggest otherwise. The Indian government is inviting the world to call it unconstitutional and undemocratic

Ms. Leslee Udwin

Recently the release of the documentary “India’s Daughter” lead to a controversy. The release of this documentary got attention of our parliament and all the political parties asked the government to ban it. The Indian government blocked its broadcast in India by obtaining a court order on 4 March 2015. The BBC said it would comply with the order and did not broadcast the film in India. The Centre also asked video-sharing website YouTube to remove all links to the documentary. Delhi police said the ban was imposed as comments in the film by one of those convicted of the crime are outrageous and they have created an atmosphere of “fear and tension” and they risked fuelling public anger.

The documentary is based on the Nirbhaya gang rape and fatal assault that occurred on 16 December 2012 in Delhi, when a 23-year-old female was beaten and gang raped in a private bus in which she was travelling with a male friend. There were six others in the bus, all of whom raped the woman and beat her friend. Thirteen days after the assault, the woman was transferred to a hospital, but two days later she succumbed to her injuries.

“India’s daughter” featured an interview with Mukesh Singh, one of four men sentenced to death for the rape, torture and murder of a 23-year-old woman on a moving bus. He in that interview said, “When being raped, she shouldn’t fight back. She should just be silent and allow the rape. Then they’d have dropped her off after ‘doing her’, and only hit the boy. “He later added, “A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy … A decent girl won’t roam around at nine o’clock at night. Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes.”

The documentary also featured the comments of those two defence lawyers. A.P. Singh on of the defence lawyer said, “If my daughter or sister engaged in pre-marital activities and disgraced herself and allowed herself to lose face and character by doing such things, I would most certainly take this sort of sister or daughter to my farmhouse, and in front of my entire family, I would put petrol on her and set her alight.”

These comments sparked outrage on social media as well as in the parliament.   There were discussions all over the country regarding the comments and the mindset of the people who commit such heinous crimes. Some people have questioned whether the convicts should have been given a platform to express their views. Some people also argued that the membership of the lawyers should be cancelled.

Leslie Udwin, the British filmmaker who made the controversial documentary on the Nirbhaya rape case Udwin said she was hopeful the film would eventually be screened in India. The filmmaker said her documentary was designed to unleash a global campaign to stop violence against women and to promote their rights.

A home ministry official alleged that, “Her sole intention, it seems, was to interview the Nirbhaya case convict — which she didn’t reveal to the home ministry or Tihar authorities while seeking a nod. She filmed half-a-dozen convicts in Tihar but only Mukesh Singh’s interview has made it to the documentary,”

Recently Anjali Bhushan, the co-producer of the controversial documentary “India’s Daughter” made a statement, It appeared in Hindustan Times, but was later deleted for unknown reasons. She said, “The documentary “India’s Daughter” was therefore conceived to serve a social cause which was unfortunately overshadowed by the self-promoting agenda of my collaborator, Ms. Leslee Udwin. I had fallen out with her by the time that the principle photography of the film was completed and was conveniently excluded from the final edits. Subsequently, her attempt to exploit the subject matter of the documentary in a self-advancing attempt to sensationalize the content has not only brought disrepute to my profession and the country but also resulted in hurting the sentiments of the victims of rape who would invariably be exposed to the film.”

The documentary lead to the debate all over the country. Some people demanded that the ban should be lifted while others are of the view that such documentary should be banned.

According to a report it was found that Leslee Udwin tried many unsuccessful attempts to interview Singh. And finally after receiving permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs and Tihar Jail with the help of a person name Khullar. An investigation by the times in the Tihar Jail found that Mukesh Singh demanded Rs 2 Lakh initially and later negotiated for Rs 40,000. The money was reportedly delivered to Mukesh’s family.

The ban imposed by the government is justified. The documentary should have been made for a social cause, which it failed to serve. Now the main matter of concern is the content of this documentary, the documentary served as a platform for the convict to express his views. The convict expressed no remorse over the incident in the interview and instead blamed the victim for going out in the night and resisting rape. Likewise the statement by the lawyers were hateful and sickening. These statements represent a sick mindset. Due to such statements the documentary failed to serve the social cause and instead it insulted Nirbhaya and has reopened old wounds. What was the motive for showing these statements? It seemed that the producer wanted the world wide attention and the movie was made for her vested interest. It is not Journalism and by banning such documentaries no freedom of expression is violated. Fundamental rights are not licence and rights are followed by duties. The government is entitled to control any of these documentaries that target the people at large and create public outrage.

Recently German professor refused to give Indian male students internship on the pretext that she is afraid because rapes are common in India. These instance are nothing but the consequences of such documentaries that defame India. Nowadays it has become a fashion for the West to preach us. Recently president Obama said on ‘Man Ki Baat’ that India should maintain religious harmony on the other hand in U.S.A racial discrimination is rising at an alarming rate. In United Kingdom which was the most advanced nation once there was no right for the women to vote. Finally after 110 years of struggle finally in 1928: Women received the vote on the same terms as men (over the age of 21) as a result of the Representation of the People Act 1928 and they preaching us gender equality. And similarly there are several other examples.

Sexual violence in India is rising in an alarming rate and we Indians should not avoid this issue we should accept this. But we certainly aren’t the ‘Rape Capital’ of the world. There are many people in India having the same mindset as of Mukesh Singh but to generalize all Indians for being having the same mindset is bad.

Documentary includes a hateful portrayal of the issue. It was aired and it is a sad reflection of the triumph of the personal ambition of a producer who valued publicity and international recognition over the social agenda. Delhi High Court reacted to a PIL filed and declined to immediately revoke the ban on the telecast of controversial BBC documentary “India’s Daughter”.




Reader Rating: (1 Vote)
The following two tabs change content below.

Kartikey Misra

A student of law, co-founder eltrivate, Individualist, Narcissist. Totally believes in Nationalism. Has an interest in politics, history, religion, literature and international relations. Loves to hunt pseudo liberals and pseudo seculars.

Latest posts by Kartikey Misra (see all)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.