top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 8:56:24 pm

‘Save Sharia’ campaign feeds Hindutva politics

Mumbai: Prominent Muslims and others have slammed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s ‘Save India, Save Sharia’ nationwide campaign, alleging that it could deepen polarization while willy-nilly supporting the very forces the AIMPLB claims to oppose. Launched on Sep. 17 – coinciding with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 76th birthday – the AIMPLB’s 3-month-long campaign is aimed at mobilizing public opinion around protecting the Constitutional rights, preserving the Muslim Personal Law...

‘Save Sharia’ campaign feeds Hindutva politics

Mumbai: Prominent Muslims and others have slammed the All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s ‘Save India, Save Sharia’ nationwide campaign, alleging that it could deepen polarization while willy-nilly supporting the very forces the AIMPLB claims to oppose. Launched on Sep. 17 – coinciding with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 76th birthday – the AIMPLB’s 3-month-long campaign is aimed at mobilizing public opinion around protecting the Constitutional rights, preserving the Muslim Personal Law within the framework of safeguarding India’s pluralistic and democratic character. The AIMPLB leaders said they are soliciting support of people, intellectuals, activists, social and religious organisations who value justice, democracy, peace and the Constitution, to strengthen constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, justice and equality, religious freedom, social harmony and national unity. Around 100 progressive Muslim and non-Muslim intellectuals, activists, organisations and supporters have warned that what the AIMPLB presents as a defence of constitutional rights, religious freedom and Muslim identity "could deepen divisions, and may provide political ammunition to right-wing forces". The progressive have accused AIMPLB of selectively invoking Art. 25-30 of the Constitution related to Religious Freedom, while ignoring that these rights are explicitly subject to public order, morality, and health. Moreover, they conveniently bypass Articles 14 and 15, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit sex or religion-based discrimination. “Following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections where civil society and opposition parties rallied under 'Save the Constitution', the AIMPLB's campaign inadvertently gave the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Sangh Parivar a platform to posture as defenders of constitutional norms. Ahead of crucial state assembly elections, this campaign reinforces false narratives and fuels propaganda that Indian Muslims reject the law of the land,” said the intellectuals. They pointed out how the so-called ‘God-given Shariat Law’ in India is nothing but man-made personal laws and ‘male interpreted patriarchal interpretations’, defended by the AIMPLB. In its September 2016 Supreme Court affidavit in the Triple Talaq case (Sayara Bano v/s. Union of India), the AIMPLB’s affidavit claimed divorce rights belong primarily to husbands because men allegedly possess ‘greater power of decision-making’ and ‘control emotions’. It even argued that without a quick separation option, a husband ‘may resort to illegal, criminal ways of murdering or burning her alive’ - a disturbing rationalization of domestic violence. Claiming these laws are divine, the AIMPLB admitted that “India is a patriarchal society, and therefore personal laws of all communities are aligned with the patriarchal notion...” The progressives countered that Muslim-majority nations globally including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tunisia and Morocco have codified and reformed personal laws to protect women's rights. “Millions of Muslims live in secular democratic nations with uniform family codes without putting ‘Islam in danger’. The Muslim community’s current legal predicament in India is the direct result of the AIMPLB and conservative leaders failing to proactively reform and codify Muslim Personal Law,” said the progressives sharply. They said that genuine family law reform must guarantee Muslim women equal rights regarding minimum marriage age, abolition of polygamy, mutual divorce, equal inheritance, child custody, adoption, and a ban on female genital mutilation and halala. While secular political parties rarely support the rights of Muslim women, the BJP and the Hindu Right wing do so with an obvious motive: ‘communal polarization’, said the progressives. “The sangh parivar sheds crocodile tears for Muslim women while ignoring relentless hate speech (Love Jihad, Land Jihad…) and hate crimes like mob lynching, bulldozing homes, demolishing mosques or economic boycotts, with chants of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ to intimidate and strike fear. This accompanies state actions targeting Muslims: Waqf Amendment Act, draconian anti-conversion laws, and a weaponised SIR (Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls) to disenfranchise vast sections of the electorate,” they averred. The progressives have sought the active involvement of all enlightened forces, civil society organisations and secular political parties to ensure that the demand for a gender-just, religion-neutral Uniform Civil Code is rooted in equality and human rights, rather than weaponized for communal division. Among the signatories to the appeal are: Naseeruddin Shah, Amol Palekar, Zeenat Shaukat Ali, Anand Patwardhan, Sultan Shaheen, Teesta Setalvad, Ram Puniyani, Tushar Gandhi, Mallika Sarabhai, Ratna Pathak, Feroze Mithiborwala, Anita Cheria, Zakia Soman, Jyothi Yedulla, Noorjehan S. Niaz, Madhu Bhaduri, et al.

From Cable TV to OTT: Journey of Freedom and Controversy

Writer: Abhijit Joshi
Abhijit Joshi
Oct 25, 2024
3 min read
Cable TV to OTT

The Indian entertainment landscape has undergone a dramatic transformation over the last few decades, moving from the simple, censored broadcasts of Doordarshan in the 1980s to the unregulated content explosion on over-the-top (OTT) platforms today. While this shift has brought global content into Indian homes, it has also sparked debates about regulation, cultural influence, and content control.


The journey began in October 1992 when India saw the launch of Zee TV, the country's first privately-owned cable channel. This was followed by the launch of the Asia Television Network (ATN). These channels marked the beginning of India's foray into private television broadcasting. A few years later, global networks like CNN, Discovery Channel, and National Geographic entered the Indian market, providing viewers with a broader range of content.


This era represented a significant departure from the limited and heavily censored programming offered by Doordarshan. Private television opened the floodgates for content driven by Western cultural influences, creating a shift in the way Indian audiences consumed entertainment.


The Rise of OTT Platforms

The next major disruption came in 2008 with the launch of BIGFlix by Reliance Entertainment, marking India's entry into the world of OTT platforms. This was followed by the launch of the nexGTv app by Digivive in 2010, which allowed users to access live TV and on-demand content on mobile phones. Notably, nexGTv became the first platform to live-stream Indian Premier League (IPL) matches on smartphones during 2013 and 2014, further cementing the popularity of OTT services in the country.


The arrival of Hotstar and Netflix shortly thereafter changed the entertainment landscape entirely. Indian audiences could now watch content from around the globe, at any time, and on any device. This newfound freedom came with its own challenges, as OTT platforms operated without the stringent censorship typically imposed on television content.


Ruling on OTT Regulation

As OTT platforms gained popularity, concerns over content regulation emerged. On Friday, the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the establishment of an autonomous body to monitor and filter content on OTT platforms.


The bench, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ruled that the regulation of such platforms was a policy matter for the executive branch, requiring extensive consultation with various stakeholders.


The court’s ruling highlights a growing debate in India about content control and the responsibilities of OTT platforms. While some advocate for creative freedom, others argue for the need to regulate explicit content, especially to protect minors.


Controversies over OTT

The unregulated nature of OTT platforms has led to controversies, such as the case against Balaji Telefilms, its founder Ektaa R Kapoor, and her mother, Shobha Kapoor.


The Mumbai Police have registered a case under Sections 295-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Information Technology (IT) Act, and Sections 13 and 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The charges relate to the Alt Balaji series Gandi Baat, which is accused of using minors for pornographic purposes.


The Debate Over Content

Reflecting on the past, there is a stark contrast between the decency and censorship of Doordarshan in the 1980s and the wide-open world of OTT content today. With the rise of private networks, Western cultural influences began seeping into Indian entertainment, and this trend has only intensified with the rise of OTT platforms. Today, anyone with a smartphone can access a vast ocean of content, often without restrictions on what they can watch.


However, this freedom comes with a dilemma. While nobody is advocating for strict censorship or dictating what people should or should not watch, the question remains: Who is responsible for regulating this content? Is it the government’s role to intervene, or should it be left to individuals to decide what is appropriate for themselves and their families?


There is no doubt that OTT platforms provide valuable and diverse content, ranging from informative documentaries to well-crafted films and series. Yet, alongside these high-quality productions, there is a significant amount of sexually explicit content, which is more common in Western media but now prevalent on Indian OTT platforms.


The Path Forward

So, what is the solution? The responsibility for regulating OTT content cannot lie solely with the government, nor can it be completely left in the hands of viewers. Content creators and OTT platform owners also need to take responsibility for what they are producing and promoting. It is essential to strike a balance between creative freedom and ethical responsibility.


The debate over content regulation is similar to the one surrounding cigarette advertising.


Until a comprehensive policy is developed and implemented, it is up to the viewers to decide how deep they want to dive into the OTT sea. The power of choice is in their hands, but so is the responsibility.


(The author is a communication professional. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page