8 Minutes Read
The vitriolic campaign triggered by the film L2: Empuraan (2025) signals the emergence of an alarming trend that’s relatively unfamiliar to Kerala’s public sphere. Anchored by Sangh Parivar, the outrage against Empuraan called for the excision or ban of the film along with a complete embargo of the filmmakers. The film reportedly contains portions detailing the Sangh’s role in the heinous 2002 Gujarat genocide, giving rise to the widespread regulatory clamour by the Hindu nationalist groups. The latest reports point towards a shocking development of the filmmakers expressing willingness to cut scenes of Empuraan and resubmit for censor certification. The whole episode shows that the Hindu nationalist camp could achieve some success in sparking a nationwide campaign and forcing the producers to surrender, a first in the state’s and Malayalam film industry’s history.
This pattern of a ‘coercive social censorship’, as argued by Rajeev Dhavan, has been in vogue for some decades. Artists, authors, public figures and many forms of public expression have faced severe backlash from the Hindu nationalist groups and, at times, were physically targeted. This trend reached an unprecedented high after 2014, with the NDA under Prime Minister Narendra Modi coming to power in a brutal majority. The murders of M M Kalburgi, Narendra Dabolkar, Govind Pansare and Gauri Lankesh show the extent to which these muzzling could go. Violent moblisations against authors like Wendy Doniger, James Laine, Ashis Nandy, Amartya Sen and Perumal Murugan and artists like M F Hussain and Irfan Hussain, along with vituperative campaigns against films including Khal Nayak (Villain, 1993, Bombay (1995), Fire (1996), Fanaa (2006), My Name is Khan (2010), PK (2014), Padmaavat (2018), Annapoorani (2023) reveal the hostility shown by Hindu nationalist groups toward any digressing or critical opinion. Another recent incident worth noting is the coercive crackdown on comedian Kunal Kamra, whose performance provoked the Shiv Sena, triggering a wave of vandalism and outrage.
Such violent campaigns, bypassing existing legal statutes and institutional framework, have always been projected as democratically legitimate reactions, emanating out of hurt religious, communal, and nationalist sentiments. As a constitutional democracy, the Indian state grants everyone the right to mark their dissent or protest, and the outrages against public figures and artists and their public comments are also framed as legitimate outpour of reactions. The protesters and vandals term their actions as ‘reasonable civic actions’ granted under a democracy, as argued by Shakuntala Banaji, triggered out of genuine concerns for their identity. Here, that identity, according to Hindu nationalist groups, is under constant threat from ‘disloyal parasites’ inside the country. Hindu nationalist ideology, a variant of cultural nationalism, defines that identity as a monolithic construct with intolerance towards other communities, lifestyles, cultures and ideologies. Subscribing to Hindu nationalism makes you a ‘loyal national subject’ with the power and responsibility to protect your identity and nation. So, any individual and collective action to shield your nationalist identity is portrayed as emerging from legitimate concerns of a citizen. Hence, violent actions and coercive measures to intimidate, silence and eliminate critical and oppositional voices would also be projected and seen as justifiable.
Saviours of Nation
As the majoritarian nationalism of Hindutva rules the roost in India, oppositional voices get subjugated and silenced through vandalism and violent public actions that are carried out in the name of the ‘nation’. So, if you raise your voice against a leader, policy, or a repressive measure of the NDA government, you’re immediately labelled as ‘anti-national’ who must be taught a lesson. People who are alleged to have consumed bovine meat are lynched, students criticising the government are incarcerated, journalists and activists are hunted down for raising voices against authoritarianism, and minorities are subjected to manifold levels of heckling, manhandling, torture, and carnages orchestrated as communal altercations. All of these appalling conducts are valorised as brave acts of defending your Hindu identity and nation, thereby boosting your communal pride and esteem. Many such mobilisations are galvanised in a local, regional, decentralised and diffused manner and have often been camouflaged as spontaneous outbursts triggered out of religious, regional, communal and nationalist sentiments. They follow a vigilante mode of operation, bypassing all norms of reasonable public conduct and circumventing the institutional framework of public action. At times, their frenetic modes of mobilisation work as pressure tactics on institutions, policymakers and public figures to yield to their demands. As argued by Shakuntala Banaji and Kari Telle, this creates a sense of ‘vigilante citizenship’ and collectives of ‘vigilante publics’ in which decentralised and local assertions of identity and communal sentiments are sanctioned in a democratic state ruled by majoritarian ideology.
Rulers of the United States, Italy, Austria and Argentina also impose protectionist, majoritarian measures by vilifying minorities in their countries and projecting an imaginary ‘enemy’ as an impediment to their nationalist vision.
The ‘vigilante publics’ operate in highly media-saturated public spheres, boosting the violent vigilante actions to mass publicity. This could be achieved through traditional media outlets such as newspaper, radio and TV and sophisticated platforms like the internet and social media. With a local incident like the lynching of Akhlaq getting enhanced media publicity through persistent coverage and interpersonal propagation through social media, the claims raised by the perpetrators reach a wider audience. This amplifies the reach of the ideological constructs of Hindu nationalism, cementing its supremacy over Indian society. The nationalism espoused by this majoritarian ideology reorients the norms of citizenship and encourages more to join in the project of ‘disnfecting’ the nation. Such claims and calls are not just specific to India. Rulers of the United States, Italy, Austria and Argentina also impose protectionist, majoritarian measures by vilifying minorities in their countries and projecting an imaginary ‘enemy’ as an impediment to their nationalist vision. Many other countries like France, Brazil, etc., also witness the exponential rise of far-right politics operating through ‘vigilante publics’. So, the recent rise of far-right politics worldwide should be seen along with how these political forces challenge the prevalent liberal democratic framework and redefine modern rhetorics along ‘vigilante citizenship’. This rare phenomenon must also not be seen as a cultural shift in the societies mentioned but as dire consequences of reorienting the world order along the neoliberal economic ideology. The rise of Hindu nationalism in India, propelled by the violent campaigns in the late 1980s and 1990s, such as anti-Mandal protests, the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, and the consequential demolition of Babri Masjid, also has its roots in the neoliberal restructuring of the Indian economy. Many crucial structural shifts in Indian society and the escalating discontent of people cemented Hindu nationalism’s stature as an alternative to the failures of post-independent Nehruvian policymaking.
Vigilante Censorship and Hindu Majoritarian Politics
Eruption of a series of regulatory outrages against films in India also form a major part of this pattern. There were such outrages even before the exponential rise of Hindu nationalism in the Indian political scenario, i.e., the 1990s. Outrages against Sujata (1959), Ankur (1974), Satyam Shivam Sundaram (1978), Ore Oru Gramathile (1987) were some among them. However, an increasing number of such regulatory outrages began erupting in the 1990s, and the protesters deployed violent street protests and vandalism to mount pressure upon the official censor body, CBFC, and the filmmakers to cut or ban films. They were mobilised by stirring the religious, communal, regional and nationalist sentiments, alleging that the films had violated cultural sensibilities. As said earlier, films like Fire (1996), Fanaa (2006), My Name is Khan (2010), PK (2014), Padmaavat (2018) had to face intense public campaigns and violent outpour since they got entangled with the political and ideological tenets and operations of Hindu nationalist outfits. Also, the outbreak of such uproars generated heated discussions in the media- both traditional and new media- boosting the visibility of both the controversy and the regulators. This amplified publicity also aids Hindu nationalist groups in maintaining and strengthening their ideological supremacy. Such a form of film regulation, by which local vigilante modes of mobilisation subvert the prevalent institutional and democratic conduct, could be called ‘vigilante censorship’, as argued by this author. Hindu nationalist groups employ ‘vigilante censoring’ methods, not just to amplify campaigns against films but also to enhance its ideological visibility and grip.
Their vast organisational network and presence aid in amplifying the regulatory outrages, as any of their public campaigns and vandalism, like the demolition of Babri Masjid.
Another important question arises at this juncture. There have been regulatory outrages against films orchestrated by minority communities, caste groups, gender organisations and regional denominations. Violent campaigns against films like Gadar: Ek Prem Katha (2001), Aaja Nachle (2007), Singh is Kinng (2008), Aarakshan (2011), Vishwaroopam (2013), Jolly LLB 2 (2017) also erupted as spontaneous, local and communal mobilisations alleging the films of hurting the respective community’s religious, regional and communal sentiments. Would they come under the scope of vigilante censorship? Yes, the chronology of these outrages demonstrates the traits of vigilante modes of mobilisation against films. However, the scale of such uproars and the resulting visibility do not match the regulatory outrages orchestrated by Hindu nationalist groups since the latter follow the majoritarian ideology that reigns over Indian society. Their vast organisational network and presence aid in amplifying the regulatory outrages, as any of their public campaigns and vandalism, like the demolition of Babri Masjid. Hence, the intense public action and visibility for vigilante censorship carried out by Hindu nationalist groups is mammoth in scale and scope.
Who’s the Overlord?
The virulent public debate and campaign against Empuraan follows the pattern of vigilante censorship methods deployed by Hindu nationalist groups. However, such a development is unprecedented in Kerala, as the Sangh Parivar has not yet achieved supremacy in the state’s political scenario. As Kerala’s public sphere is still saturated with relatively liberal and left ethos, any campaign led by Hindu nationalist groups could never have ballooned into an intimidating episode for the filmmakers, as in the case of Empuraan. Now, a drastic shift has occurred. Hence, it raises serious concerns as it throws light into the social dynamics in Kerala. A distinctive feature of this episode is the absence of violent street campaigns and vandalism, which are usually integral to vigilante censorship. The complete ordeal has been stirred and perpetuated through online discussions that spread like wildfire. Vituperative comments and incendiary remarks by many online trolls and figures associated with the Hindu nationalist camp, targeting the filmmakers, flooded social media. The campaign sparked widespread debates on traditional media and other platforms, resulting in enormous coverage. Such a heated discussion and mudslinging engendered an intimidating atmosphere, forcing the filmmakers to re-edit Empuraan. Such a complex situation should be examined in conjunction with a debate on whether the reign of Hindu nationalism in India exhibits the traits of Neo-Fascism. So, the whole episode of Empuraan calls for careful analysis and prudent action from all progressive forces, as it clearly shows how Hindu nationalist groups could dictate a public debate even without much organisational might.
* The phrasing echoes the famous Martin Niemöller quote (“First they came for…”)
About the Author
