‘Sound of Freedom’ and ‘The Kerala Story’: A comparison of the socio-legal reaction in the US and India

The release of both movies led to an uproar, starting a political discourse on freedom of speech and expression among various segments of the population. Movies are used as a political tool, but there is a striking difference in the legislative provisions in India and in the US. 

—

THE reactions in India to The Kerala Story bear several similarities to the manner in which Sound of Freedom was received in the US. 

Both movies faced severe backlash from critics for catering to conspiracy theories. Yet there is a considerable difference in how the respective governments reacted to the two movies.

Javed Akhtar, the legendary Bollywood script writer and lyricist, was once confronted in an interview about why his colleagues choose to be 'apolitical'. 

He retorted that when Meryl Streep gave a speech against the then President of the US, her movies were not banned, but the scenario in India is not the same, as was evident in the then Gujarat government banning the screening of Fanaa due to the lead actor's remarks on the Sardar Sarovar dam project on the Narmada river in the state.

This sharp line neatly sums up the difference in approaches to an individual's right to freedom of speech and expression in the two countries, but there is, obviously, much more to it than that.

Both countries are massive experiments with democracy and have two of the biggest entertainment industries in the world.

Over the past few years, the immense scrutiny surrounding the entertainment industry and the way the industry operates has increased dramatically, prompting it to become a hot topic of discussion in electoral discourse.

Individuals working in the film industry have reacted differently to the development of the industry becoming infused by politics. However, films as social mediums have acknowledged this reality and incorporated some polarising elements.

Also read: Of good and bad propaganda: A comparative analysis of 'Afwaah' and 'The Kerala Story'

Filmmakers have taken a deep dive into discourses which a large section of viewers may simply find distasteful, for example, web series like Velma, Dahaad, Leila and She-Hulk.

However, there are movies in which the discourse or theory is not an element, but the central theme around which the material is built.

The society and the State's reaction to the idea of unabashedly propagating a narrative in the two countries is a comparison worth studying, because it brings to light the fundamental understanding of freedom of speech and expression in each country.

The nexus between the movies

The Kerala Story, released earlier this year, is a movie that was inspired by the actual story of three women who left India to join the Khalifa (Caliph) in Afghanistan and were groomed into joining the Islamic State (ISIS).

The movie also closely follows the conspiracy of 'love jihad' which claims that Muslim men groom young Hindu women to convert them to Islam.

Sound of Freedom, on the other hand, looks at the story of Timothy Ballard, a former special agent-turned-anti-human trafficking activist.

The movie has been accused of catering to QAnon worldview with the protagonist of the movie openly endorsing some theories associated with the movement.

Unlike most controversial films where 'liberals' are accused of trying to push down their agenda using popular media, both of these movies have come from a right-wing bent.

Also read: 'Political satire versus State: What content will survive the internet?' discussed by panel comprising lawyer, independent journalist and political satirist at FoE Con

The producer of Sound of Freedom is Eduardo Verástegui, an openly conservative activist with ties to Donald Trump.

The distributors of the movie are Angel Studios, a Utah-based organisation which has a record of producing movies with a Christian conservative bent.

The Kerala Story, on the other hand, had no direct political links but it received a ringing endorsement from the entire machinery of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Director Sudipto Sen had previously also made a documentary, In the Name of Love, which spoke of religious conversion of women in Kerala.

The similarities between the two movies do not simply end with the nature of the team behind the movies. There is also a similar octave that the two choose to place themselves in, namely the electoral narrative and demonisation.

The core ideas behind both the movies are based on ideas which have played a key role in shaping election outcomes in their respective countries.

Love jihad, the theme of The Kerala Story, has been regularly touted by the BJP as a significant election issue, and at the same time has been used to demonise the idea of interfaith marriages.

Sound of Freedom caters to the idea that leftists use children as weapons, because the movie depicts one of the main buyers of trafficked children to be part of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist-Leninist insurgent group.

First amendment versus Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution 

Public reactions to the movies have been similar, with thinkers on both sides of the political divide articulating their views on the subject matter as unofficial representatives of ideas.

But the governments of the two countries have shown very different reactions. There was an attempt by several non-BJP state governments to ban The Kerala Story but they were not successful, largely because the Supreme Court chose to intervene, just as it had intervened in the case of Padmaavat five years ago.

Also read: Two films, with a similar message: Why the judiciary cannot become a hollow hope for its people

However, the fact that the government decided to go ahead with the ban on Padmaavat was a clear message for many theatres and cinema chains who decided not to screen the movie, the movie's team alleges.

The US does not have an outright system of banning movies, but they do have a history of drumming up borderline state-sanctioned boycotts.

The most famous example of such a boycott is that of McCarthyism, which produced the infamous Hollywood blacklist as a result of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC).

The HUAC targeted individuals with public hearings which would eventually make it impossible for the said person to find work in the industry.

In India, bans on films are sanctioned under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which imposes limitations on the freedom of speech and expression.

There are several constraints on when the government can invoke the limitations given under Article 19(2), but by the time any piece of media can get to the point where it can win justice from the Supreme Court, the damage is already done.

The most common consequence of attempting to perpetuate such a ban is political parties using non-State actors to continue to uphold their ban.

For example, in 2018, Padmaavat only got a limited release throughout the country because of the high-octane campaign by non-State groups.

In the case of Sound of Freedom, there has been no political reaction from any leader whatsoever, but that is largely because there does not exist an outright culture of leaders taking a stance on such matters.

Also read: 'Can't make fundamental rights dependent on public display of emotion', says SC, stays ban on 'The Kerala Story' in West Bengal

The Republicans do rally against the Hollywood elites. It is still limited to rhetoric and there is a problem of 'cancel culture' led by Democratic supporters, but it does not seem to always work.

The polarisation is largely social and not State-sanctioned. This is primarily because the first amendment made to the American Constitution is a comparatively stronger doctrine than Article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

Overall, despite their respective constraints, it is clear that in India, the entertainment industry is in a far more fragile position as compared to the US.

The Indian film industry's characteristics, mixed with the might of the unofficial non-State actors which political parties can unleash as per their will, makes the industry vulnerable when dealing with sensitive issues.

For an overarching solution to the problem, merely judicial activism will not be enough, there needs to be a concrete amendment to the nature of the relationship between the State and the industry.