Muslim World Report

Kunal Kamra Targeted While Other Insults Go Unpunished in India

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 28, 2025 10:02 AM | 9 min read | 1771 words

TL;DR: Comedian Kunal Kamra is facing backlash and government action for comments made about Shivaji Maharaj, while other similar insults go unpunished. This inconsistency in action reflects a broader erosion of free speech in India and highlights the political hypocrisy affecting civil liberties. The BMC’s demolition of Kamra’s studio illustrates retaliation against dissenting voices. This situation prompts questions about the state of democracy in India and the role of political opposition.

The Erosion of Free Speech in India: A Troubling Reality

In recent weeks, the Indian political landscape has been rocked by a verbal confrontation between Uddhav Thackeray, the leader of the Shiv Sena party, and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This controversy was ignited when comedian Kunal Kamra was summoned by the government for allegedly insulting Shivaji Maharaj, a revered historical figure in Maharashtra. Thackeray’s remarks about this selective enforcement of legal action highlight a deeper, more troubling reality: the ongoing erosion of free speech in India and the apparent hypocrisy of political leaders who wield power arbitrarily.

Alarm Bells for Civil Liberties

What raises alarm bells in this scenario is not just the targeting of Kamra, but the broader implications for:

  • Civil liberties
  • Accountability
  • The essence of democracy in India.

The discrepancy in responses to offensive speech is glaring:

  • Kamra faced governmental action for his remarks.
  • Rahul Solapurkar, who also made derogatory comments about Shivaji Maharaj, faced no repercussions.

This selective enforcement suggests a politically motivated agenda emanating from a government more interested in silencing dissent than fostering healthy political discourse. Such actions are reminiscent of authoritarian regimes where the suppression of dissent becomes a tool of governance (Armstrong, 2010).

Moreover, the demolition of Kamra’s Habitat Studio by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) adds another layer to this troubling narrative. Critics view this as a blatant act of retaliation against an outspoken public figure, raising critical questions about the state’s commitment to upholding democratic principles. This chilling effect on free speech invariably cultivates a climate of fear among citizens, undermining the very foundations of democracy.

In a nation grappling with pressing issues such as poverty, corruption, and unemployment, the ruling party’s fixation on silencing dissent serves as both a distraction and a mechanism for authoritarian control (Wasserman & Connolly, 2017). As noted by scholars, the erosion of civil liberties often correlates with an increase in state repression, as governments become more emboldened to disregard democratic norms in the pursuit of political stability (Møller & Skaaning, 2013; Heller, 2001).

The Failures of the Opposition

The current political climate also reveals the incompetence of the opposition. Instead of presenting a coherent and compelling alternative to the authoritarian tendencies of the BJP, parties like the Shiv Sena are often embroiled in trivial disputes that distract from the pressing issues facing the nation. Thackeray’s focus on gaining public attention through the defense of a historical figure rather than addressing contemporary issues like:

  • Economic disparity
  • The erosion of civil liberties

reflects a broader failure of political leadership. This penchant for historical engagement over substantive dialogue perpetuates a cycle of disillusionment among constituents, who find their concerns marginalized (Dahl, 1970).

The prevailing narrative that free speech can only be protected when it aligns with specific historical or political sentiments is not only flawed but dangerous. The government cannot justly act against individuals based on selective outrage, as this sets a perilous precedent for the curtailment of civil liberties. The ruling party’s response to dissent often mirrors patterns seen in authoritarian states, where silencing critics becomes a primary strategy for maintaining power (Esen & Gümüşçü, 2016). Observers of global political trends have noted that the rise of authoritarianism increasingly features the subversion of civil liberties in the name of national security or cultural cohesion (Diamond, 2015).

What If Public Dissent Escalates?

If public dissent escalates in response to the ongoing suppression of free speech, one could envision a significant mobilization of civil society and political opposition. This mobilization may be expressed through:

  • Protests
  • Artistic expressions
  • Renewed calls for democratic reforms

History shows that such movements often serve as catalysts for change; however, they also risk provoking aggressive crackdowns from governmental forces, leading to violent confrontations (Killen & Smetana, 2006). An escalation of dissent could challenge the ruling party’s grip on power, compelling them to either intensify authoritarian practices or reconsider their stance on free expression (Wacquant, 2010).

On a global scale, increasing dissent in India would likely attract international scrutiny. Governments and human rights organizations worldwide may amplify calls for accountability and safeguarding civil liberties, placing additional pressure on Indian leadership to balance order with the demands of a restless populace. As history has shown, in moments of civil unrest, international actors often engage in diplomatic dialogues or issue public condemnations aimed at human rights violations.

However, it is essential to recognize the dual-edged nature of international scrutiny. Should the ruling party opt for aggressive suppression in the face of dissent, they risk igniting broader unrest, potentially destabilizing not only the nation but also the region (Dalmasso & Cavatorta, 2013). The outcome could hinge on the government’s response to dissenting voices; they may find their authority weakened if they choose to ignore the calls for reform and accountability.

What If International Actors Intervene?

Imagine if international stakeholders, including foreign governments and global human rights organizations, choose to intervene in the Indian political landscape. Such intervention could take various forms, from:

  • Diplomatic pressure
  • Sanctions targeting individuals responsible for human rights violations.

The ramifications for India could be profound, threatening to disrupt trade agreements, international collaborations, and foreign investments (Heckathorn, 1993).

Increased scrutiny from international bodies may galvanize domestic support for free speech and anti-imperialist movements, uniting diverse groups against a common adversary. Yet, this external pressure also risks being exploited by nationalist factions within India, who might frame it as an infringement on sovereignty, rallying their base against perceived foreign encroachments (Rampazzo et al., 2008). The reaction to such international interventions could potentially lead to heightened nationalism, with authorities using the situation to create a narrative of victimhood designed to distract from pressing domestic issues. This could serve as a tool to consolidate power, compelling citizens to rally around the government in a show of national pride.

In essence, the government’s response to international intervention could provoke a volatile backlash, wherein it feels compelled to assert its authority more aggressively in order to counter perceived external threats, risking further escalation of unrest.

What If the Government Implements Reforms?

Conversely, suppose the Indian government genuinely addresses the outcry surrounding free speech violations and initiates reforms aimed at curtailing authoritarian practices. Such genuine reforms could signal a willingness to engage with citizens’ concerns and foster a more open political discourse. Implementing reforms focused on freedom of expression and the arts could reshape India’s international image, positioning it as a leader of democratic governance in a region often marred by authoritarianism.

This openness might also restore public trust in governance, illustrating that political leaders are responsive to the needs and rights of their constituents (Heller, 2001). However, achieving such transformative changes would necessitate substantial political will and a departure from the entrenched interests currently dominating the ruling party’s agenda (Pfau & Steinbach, 2006).

The risk remains, nevertheless, that any reforms may be superficial, co-opted for political gain rather than creating meaningful change. If the public perceives these efforts as a mere façade, they may experience disillusionment, leading to a resurgence of protests. This dynamic underscores the complexity of governance in contemporary India; reforms perceived as inadequate could provoke further dissent, complicating the already fraught political landscape.

Strategic Maneuvers

Navigating these complex dynamics requires various stakeholders to consider strategic maneuvers that align with their interests while promoting democratic values.

For the Indian government, embracing transparency and accountability would be critical. Acknowledging the selective enforcement of laws and engaging with public criticism could help rebuild trust. Furthermore, initiating dialogue with civil society and artists to craft policies that protect freedom of expression may serve as an olive branch to dissenting voices (O’Donnell, 2004).

Opposition parties must seize this moment to unify disparate movements advocating for civil liberties. By forming broad coalitions, they could amplify calls for reform and hold the government accountable. Engaging not only in public protests but also through legislative channels can help articulate a cohesive vision for a more just society. In today’s digital landscape, leveraging social media for visibility and mobilization is essential.

Civil society and human rights organizations must focus on documentation and advocacy. Collecting evidence of abuses and disseminating information about governmental actions fosters awareness and accountability. Collaborating with international partners to apply pressure on the Indian government through coordinated global campaigns can help highlight the erosion of democratic norms.

Artists and intellectuals play a pivotal role in shaping public discourse. By continuing to produce works that challenge dominant narratives, they can serve as catalysts for change in the political climate. Upholding their right to free expression will inspire citizens to reclaim their voice within the democratic fabric of the nation.

References

  • Armstrong, A. C. (2010). Friendly Fire Casualties of American Civil Liberty in the War on Terror: Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder and The Erosion of Free Speech. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1728580
  • Dahl, R. A. (1970). After the Revolution: Authority in a Good Society. Yale University Press.
  • Dalmasso, E., & Cavatorta, F. (2013). Democracy, Civil Liberties and the Role of Religion after the Arab Awakening: Constitutional Reforms in Tunisia and Morocco. Mediterranean Politics, 18(2), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2013.799341
  • Diamond, L. (2015). Facing Up to the Democratic Recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2015.0009
  • Esen, B., & Gümüşçü, Ş. (2016). Rising competitive authoritarianism in Turkey. Third World Quarterly, 37(9), 1580-1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1135732
  • Heller, P. (2001). Moving the State: The Politics of Democratic Decentralization in Kerala, South Africa, and Porto Alegre. Politics & Society, 29(1), 25-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029001006
  • Møller, J., & Skaaning, S.-E. (2013). Autocracies, democracies, and the violation of civil liberties. Democratization, 20(5), 759-780. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738863
  • O’Donnell, G. (2004). The Quality of Democracy: Why the Rule of Law Matters. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0076
  • Pfau, R., & Steinbach, M. (2006). Modality-independent and modality-specific aspects of grammaticalization in sign languages. Unknown Journal.
  • Rampazzo, A., Salgado, C. J., Mardini, S., Spanio di Spilimbergo, S., & Chen, H. C. (2008). Donor-Site Morbidity after Free Ileocolon Flap Transfer for Esophageal and Voice Reconstruction. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 121(1), 130e-137e. https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0b013e31818cc11e
  • Wasserman, L. M., & Connolly, J. P. (2017). The Garcetti Effect and the Erosion of Free Speech Rights of K–12 Public Education Employees: Trends and Implications. Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900607
  • Wacquant, L. (2010). Crafting the Neoliberal State: Workfare, Prisonfare, and Social Insecurity. Sociological Forum, 25(2), 246-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01173.x
← Prev Next →