A New Taliban in Tamil Nadu

Sex surveys are always controversial. Alfred Kinsey found out how puritanical the US was when he published his survey of sexual mores of adult Americans in 1953. But while Kinsey faced criticism from the Church and leaders of morality movements, he never faced the kind of legal harassment that people face in Tamil Nadu.

About two months ago, the respected newsmagazine India Today published a survey of college students. In the survey, 58% of college-age students in Bombay admitted to having pre-marital sex with their boyfriends. For its Tamil language edition, India Today asked the Tamil film star Khushboo about her reaction to the survey. Khushboo, who lived together with her future husband for two years before marrying him, reportedly said that in the current times no educated man expected his wife to be a virgin at the time of the wedding and that the survey emphasized the need for safe sex in these days of widespread sexually transmitted diseases.

One would think that the comments were innocuous enough, particularly when juxtaposed against the survey which would have shattered the comfortable myths Indians grow up with and fervently believe in such as the chastity of Indian women in contrast to the promiscuity of the women of the West. One would further think that the advice about safe sex is relevant in the context that India has one of the fastest- growing HIV patient populations in the world, with Tamil Nadu leading the way. In fact, the first AIDS patient in India was identified in Tamil Nadu.

It is well known that truck drivers in India spread the disease and that their wives are infected by the truck drivers who do not use the most elementary precaution of using a condom while having sex with either prostitutes at roadside stops or with their wives. National Public Radio of the US several years ago carried an alarming report about how the spread of AID has the potential to cripple the economic growth of India by killing off its truck drivers.

The initial reaction to Khushboo’s remarks was mild enough. Sun-TV carried a report on her remarks and the news of a small demonstration against her for having maligned Tamil women. There were slogans on public walls in Tamil Nadu asking Khushboo to leave the state and go back to her Hindi-speaking motherland but only after apologizing to Tamil women.

But soon the protests snowballed into something wholly different. Various functionaries of the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) at the district level started filing cases against Khushboo for defamation, for causing public disorder and for advocating immorality and thus leading the youth astray. The PMK was joined in this activity by the Dalit Panthers who also filed lawsuits against Khushboo.

The interesting thing is that these cases were all filed under criminal law. In the US, a private citizen can only file a civil case against an individual; he could prefer a criminal complaint against another person but the district attorney’s office will have to decide if there is a prima facie case and launch criminal proceedings. Here every Tom, Dick and Harry (or their equivalent Masanamuthu, Sangilikkaruppan and Sudalaikkannu) were filing criminal complaints. A total of twenty eight complaints were filed in various district courts nearly simultaneously. Judges, who have no hesitation in postponing even murder cases against politically-connected persons, responded with unusual alacrity, issuing summons to appear in their courts. At least in a few instances, these summons conflicted with each other, requiring Khushboo’s appearance hundreds of miles away on the same day.

Khushboo appeared on TV and tearfully apologized to the Tamil women for having possibly defamed them. Though the demand for an apology was met by this, the lawsuits proceeded. When Khushboo couldn’t appear in a court in Mettur, the judge issued an arrest warrant for her. Khushboo appeared at the court a couple of days later and was met by protesters throwing rotten eggs and tomatoes and showing her brooms and sandals. Police restrained the crowd from physically attacking Khushboo who was, according to The Hindu “enlarged” on bail, certainly not a happy choice of words when referring to an overweight woman.

As the issue seemed to fade from the public minds, the actress Suhasini came to Khushboo’s defense. She asked whether Tamilians are so special that they have horns on their heads and apologized on behalf of all Tamilians to Khushboo for the behavior of a few. This led to a fresh set of lawsuits against Suhasini for defaming Tamilians for asking if Tamilians have horns on their heads. As typical, complaints were filed nearly simultaneously at multiple towns.

The leader of the Dalit Panthers, when he appeared on NDTV, found himself isolated and, like a coward claimed that the protesters did not act at his or his party’s instigation but acted as interested individuals. If they chose to wave the party’s flag during the demonstrations, that was not sanctioned by the party.

To add to the confusion, at least four criminal complaints were filed against India Today for publishing the sex survey and Khushboo’s remarks.

All of this constitutes a clear case of intimidation and trying to deny freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the Indian constitution. The judges could have refused to admit the complaints or just ordered a first hearing 40 years later. But they realized that they could be the target of demonstrators and meekly went along. Only one judge in Tirunelveli dismissed the case against Khushboo for failure by the complainant to prove the case.

The mealy-mouthed behavior of Indian politicians became evident when various political leaders were asked their opinion about Khushboo’s remarks. Almost all of them said that the offending remarks were intemperate and should not have been made though a few of them added that Khushboo had a right to speak her mind but should have been more circumspect. What they are trying to say is that any speech can be censored by politicians if not subjected to self-censorship by the speaker.

The Tamil magazine “Thuglak”, named for the quirky Mohammad bin Tuglaq, published extracts from Periyar’s writings. Periyar is the fountainhead of all wisdom according to the Dravidian parties. Periyar had said that chastity was a tool conceived by men to enslave women, that if a man could marry two women, a woman should be able to marry three men, that the ideal situation was where men and women felt free to have sex whenever and with whomever much like beasts do in nature. Nobody had the intestinal fortitude to sue “Thuglaq” or its editor for they would be arguing against the writings of the man they profess to revere.

Kanimozhi Karunanidhi, daughter of a former chief minister of Tamil Nadu, decided to speak on Khushboo’s behalf. She pointed out that chastity (“karpu” in Tamil), when demanded of only women, is merely a device to enslave women and asked why men who claim to protect Tamil women’s honor have not spoken for chastity on the part of men. While one should laud Kanimozhi for her stand, one has to wonder whether it has anything to do with the fact that her mother was not married to Karunanidhi and thus her own birth was illegitimate, or with the fact that as a twice-divorced woman herself, there was no way she could claim constancy to her husband nor could she prove her own virginity at least at the time of her second wedding.

All National politicians, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, maintained a studious silence on the subject. That is their commitment to upholding constitutional protection to all Indian citizens.

Karunanidhi himself spoke up on the issue during his press conference. Again, he said that Khushboo intemperate in her remarks because Tamil women held their chastity in high regard. He referred to ancient Tamil literature to prove Tamil women’s chastity. Nobody asked him if chastity was an exclusive preserve of women and whether he would consider himself to be a chaste man given that he has two wives currently living and that he has admitted to fathering Kanimozhi out of wedlock.

As to Suhasini, he said that asking if Tamilians have horns was worse than showing brooms and sandals to Khushboo. He added that if things continued in the same manner, it would only strengthen his hands if he decided to revive his anti-Brahmin agitation. This was a reference to the fact that Suhasini is of Brahmin descent. Karunanidhi did not offer to lead an anti-Muslim agitation though Khushboo is a Muslim nor did any of the reporters ask him if an anti-Muslim agitation would be warranted.

The only institution that has come out of this episode with its honor intact is the High Court at Madras. The Justices observed caustically what criminal activity by Khushboo warranted an arrest warrant. They stayed all proceedings in several of the cases against Khushboo and Suhasini as did the Madurai bench against India Today.

It is clear that constitutional rights are under attack in India but nobody cares. One has to move the High Court or the Supreme Court to obtain justice. One can be subjected to harassment through criminal complaints that can only be fought through expenditure of considerable sums of money and time. This is sad state of affairs in a democracy. What we need immediately is reform of the criminal law so that free speech is not subject to prosecution even by the state let alone by individuals.