Anti-smoking fascism There seems to be a wilful blindness among our citizens regarding the government proposal to ban images of smoking in film. Rather than condemning the step, theyt cheer our would-be censors on.
The state in India has taken upon itself the role of the arbiter of public morality, and is intruding into the private domain to enforce its diktats. Already we face bans on books, films, magazines, etc., on grounds of 'hurting religious sentiments'. The Shiv Sena in Mumbai wants to tell women how to dress. Now the state will dictate personal morality vis-a-vis smoking to us. This is the thin end of the wedge - the natural progression is to outlawing all images which the state does not approve of. Soon we could see bans on images of people drinking alcohol, people falling in love (and making it), people breaking the law, people using guns, etc. From here to banning images, descriptions (and thoughts) of people protesting against the state, exercising their right to freedom of speech, etc. is a short and easy step. There will be no end to this once we let the state become the arbiter of our personal morality. Once freedom of expression gets eroded, our civil liberties are all under threat. The description by a section of the film industry of this proposal as 'absurd' is only just. Are we going to apply retrospective censorship as well? Images of the celebrations by the Indian team of the 1983 cricket world cup will also have to censored, as some team members are seen happily puffing away. Thousands of photographs (of Winston Churchill, Guru Dutt, Saadat Hassan Manto and many other smokers) will have to be rubbished. We will have to deny reality. This proposed measure is a part of what I call 'anti-smoking fascism'. Smoking has provided a soft and convenient target for modern-day petty moralists. Granted, it is a disgusting, smelly and unhealthy habit, but the state has no business preventing its citizens from engaging in any activities which do not affect anybody other than the individual concerned --however disgusting and obnoxious these activities may be. As far as smoking is concerned, the role of the state extends only insofaras it affects public health. To protect this, the state should impose high taxation, ban smoking in public places (and enforce the ban), and carry out public education campaigns-all of which it is already doing. But intruding on citizens' private spaces to tell them what to do is just not acceptable. Even with justifiable measures, the state has a tendency to go too far. Of course, smoking in offices, auditoria, and other enclosed public spaces is most necessary. Smoking in buses is just not on. But why go in for overkill? Many steps which the government in Goa has taken recently with regard to smoking were totally stupid. To take one example, banning smoking on the roads of Panjim. On what grounds can such a ban be justified? Public health? What does the government plan to do about all those private vehicles (doubtless driven by non-smokers), which spew far more noxious and polluting fumes in our faces on those very same roads? Ban all fossil-fuel driven vehicles? Besides, they have also banned smoking on beaches. This is so patently idiotic that further comment is unnecessary. -- Question everything - Karl Marx
