The Censor Board Within

HariLakhera · Feb 28, 2018

THE CENSOR BOARD WITHIN

Perumal Murugan, the Tamil writer was once interviewed by Barkha Dutt, ex-NDTV. I had never heard of him as I have never heard of many other famous writers. He was hounded by some Hundutwa forces for his novel Madhurobhagan which was translated into English as One Part Woman. He stopped writing for some years and now has penned some poems. He recently said that he continues writing and that is all he can do but has imposed self censorship on him -self.
During the course of the interview he indicated that there is one censor sitting inside him that cautions him to select his words and opinion. He is a great writer and thinker. But he too had to keep his mouth shut for a good time and now he is cautious what to write or say and what not.
Does not it sound familiar? Don’t we have this censor within us that forces us not to say something? Can we name it fear or decency or something else?
The question is here in different words. How often you stopped sort of saying something unpleasant but stopped at the nick of hour because the censor inside stopped you? How often you wanted to cry loudly but the censor inside stopped you? How often you wanted to sing at the top of your voice in a running train or bus or plane but the censor stopped you? How often you wanted to say ‘go to hell’ but the censor stopped you? These are and many other pointers lead to find out who this censor is.
Naming it ‘fear’ seems to be most appropriate. We keep our mouth shut for fear of law or for fear of people more powerful than us like the Government or the police or some high ranking official or some moneyed man who can teach us a lesson for our stupidity. The latest debate about nationality is recent case.
Naming it ‘decency’ also looks fine. We keep our mouth shut for not to annoy someone dear to us or simply for the sake of decency in our behavior. There is no point annoying or hurting the feelings of others so we keep silent or indifferent even though we feel like saying a spade a spade.

What do you say?

Iravati · Feb 28, 2018

HariLakhera said: ↑

What do you say?
Click to expand...

Your theme is offbeat and fertile for intense discussions.

Frankly, I am sensitive of the audience in public debates. You cannot preach string theory to the creationists and you cannot foist how Jonah survived in a whale for three days to science. I think the efficacy of inward censor is proportional to the cultivated sensibility to the outward audience. Just jibe with their vibes! Know one's audience and then open one's mouth is my funda. Don't get too radical or too ingratiating.

Even a perfunctory smile or a dissolving "you are absolutely right" or a semblance of understanding avoids a lot of heartburn. My inward censor: If the other person is a content and cheerful deep-sea sloshing squid then don't go about preaching the advantages of solar energy to it. Enjoy and cherish the animated tales of the squid ..Ira ..I saw a bright lit palace made of corals.

In public, only the foolish insist on what they want to say, but the wise indulge in what others are tuned to listen to.

shyamala1234 · Feb 28, 2018

HariLakhera said: ↑

THE CENSOR BOARD WITHIN

Perumal Murugan, the Tamil writer was once interviewed by Barkha Dutt, ex-NDTV. I had never heard of him as I have never heard of many other famous writers. He was hounded by some Hundutwa forces for his novel Madhurobhagan which was translated into English as One Part Woman. He stopped writing for some years and now has penned some poems. He recently said that he continues writing and that is all he can do but has imposed self censorship on him -self.
During the course of the interview he indicated that there is one censor sitting inside him that cautions him to select his words and opinion. He is a great writer and thinker. But he too had to keep his mouth shut for a good time and now he is cautious what to write or say and what not.
Does not it sound familiar? Don’t we have this censor within us that forces us not to say something? Can we name it fear or decency or something else?
The question is here in different words. How often you stopped sort of saying something unpleasant but stopped at the nick of hour because the censor inside stopped you? How often you wanted to cry loudly but the censor inside stopped you? How often you wanted to sing at the top of your voice in a running train or bus or plane but the censor stopped you? How often you wanted to say ‘go to hell’ but the censor stopped you? These are and many other pointers lead to find out who this censor is.
Naming it ‘fear’ seems to be most appropriate. We keep our mouth shut for fear of law or for fear of people more powerful than us like the Government or the police or some high ranking official or some moneyed man who can teach us a lesson for our stupidity. The latest debate about nationality is recent case.
Naming it ‘decency’ also looks fine. We keep our mouth shut for not to annoy someone dear to us or simply for the sake of decency in our behavior. There is no point annoying or hurting the feelings of others so we keep silent or indifferent even though we feel like saying a spade a spade.

What do you say?
Click to expand...

Dear Hariji,
I accept the last paragraph in toto. Most of the time censor not saying what you really want to say is for the reason that you want to retain the friendship or relationship. That is more valuable than to be outspoken.
Syamala

BhumiBabe · Feb 28, 2018

I self-censor on a daily basis. Even with people I know well. The reason is, I recognize that my thoughts and words are fluid, and may not be the same the next minute, hour, day. If I say something hurtful without deliberation, I give those words permanence, and it will color the relationship negatively. I think long and hard before I reveal certain thoughts, and the thoughts I reveal, I make sure that I can proudly back them up.

This is in my private life, but when we are considering my "public" or social media life, it is about your brand and image. Even on my facebook, I am particular about what type of articles or pictures I share. Recently, with the school shooting in Florida, I am clear about where I stand there (gun-control, obviously), and post content that informs people of ways to support this cause. Even if I enjoy other things like watching certain tv shows or recipe videos, I don't post them, because it would take away from the overall tone of my account. I want people to take me seriously/

Gauri03 · Feb 28, 2018

HariLakhera said: ↑

There is no point annoying or hurting the feelings of others so we keep silent or indifferent even though we feel like saying a spade a spade. What do you say?
Click to expand...

It is good to believe and stand up for the right things, but when given a choice between being right and being kind, be kind. It doesn't mean compromising on your values, rather being more understanding of the motivations behind what other people stand for and why. It is a lesson that one learns with age. I sure have. : )

Iravati · Mar 1, 2018

HariLakhera said: ↑

How often you stopped sort of saying something unpleasant but stopped at the nick of hour because the censor inside stopped you?
Click to expand...

Missed out. Not unpleasant but frank. Many a time I felt like intervening in whatsapp discussions and yell: itna rhetorics and jaded nobility se mat pakoa yaar. But I refrain for the person might explode and all that feigned noble discourse might vaporize in their wrath. Yes, I stop myself too often esp around people who chattafy my mind with sacrosanct fulmination. I have low tolerance for lofty and ideal rhetorics.

Your blog is a relatable affliction.

HariLakhera · Mar 3, 2018

Iravati said: ↑

Your theme is offbeat and fertile for intense discussions.
Just jibe with their vibes! Know one's audience and then open one's mouth is my funda. Don't get too radical or too ingratiating.

One of the most difficult part of this funda is to know the audience. May be it's an art also. Most of the time we look forward to acceptance which may be called ingratiating also. I, for one, would not invite confrontation or keep arguing for the sake of arguing but at the same time I would not like to end the argument in a defeat. May be the safest idea is not to start an argument at all.

In public, only the foolish insist on what they want to say, but the wise indulge in what others are tuned to listen to.
Click to expand...

In this case the author was criticized for his writings. He was almost outcast. He stopped writing but the writing bug could not allow him to sit and sulk. So he started writing but remaining cautious at the same time. Society has always been intolerant to a different view from the established one. Writers, painters and other communicators faced the ire but did not stop airing their views. Would we call such people foolish?

HariLakhera · Mar 3, 2018

shyamala1234 said: ↑

Dear Hariji,
I accept the last paragraph in toto. Most of the time censor not saying what you really want to say is for the reason that you want to retain the friendship or relationship. That is more valuable than to be outspoken.
Syamala
Click to expand...

I almost agree. This happens in real life. Yet the feelings lingers - I should have spoken.

HariLakhera · Mar 3, 2018

Iravati said: ↑

Missed out. Not unpleasant but frank. Many a time I felt like intervening in whatsapp discussions and yell: itna rhetorics and jaded nobility se mat pakoa yaar. But I refrain for the person might explode and all that feigned noble discourse might vaporize in their wrath. Yes, I stop myself too often esp around people who chattafy my mind with sacrosanct fulmination. I have low tolerance for lofty and ideal rhetorics.

Your blog is a relatable affliction.
Click to expand...

Thanks for expressing you mind. Everything is relative, action and reaction, to be or not to be, I , me and mine and that is all we have, like or not. There are yaars keeping their khichdi on stove but yaars are yaars. The problem is who refuse to be yaar no more or those who were not yaars anyway.
In private life we may justify our silence but in public life one has to take a stand.

Iravati · Mar 3, 2018

HariLakhera said: ↑

In this case the author was criticized for his writings. He was almost outcast. He stopped writing but the writing bug could not allow him to sit and sulk. So he started writing but remaining cautious at the same time.
Click to expand...

Hari,

I find your writing grounded and straight. You raise good questions.

I neither know the writer in particular (ref: Perumal Murugan) nor familiar with his works, hence I am only flirting with the broad theme and not dissecting this specific incident. I hope that is fine. If not, let me know.

Society has always been intolerant to a different view from the established one. Writers, painters and other communicators faced the ire but did not stop airing their views. Would we call such people foolish?
Click to expand...

What I am about to recount is very fresh in my memory, hence quoting. I was watching a debate between Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow. I have not read any of Deepak Chopra's books. I only have heard about his spiritual musings but never dug into them. However, in this instance, I liked his preface to the debate. He reveals to the audience that we deceive ourselves into believing that we attend these debates to examine unbiased truth. Moreover, we return home with the same preconceived notions we brought to the studio. He cites science, fMRI etc. on how ingrained our prejudices are.

In short, we are averse to opposing views. We are inclined to assimilate only favourable views. Hence, the writers, painters and other communicators who aspire to buck the trend with their non-conformity against the popular wisdom in an uncongenial crowd face untold resistance. Nietzsche had a breakdown! Many intellectuals go through meltdown amidst a hostile crowd. If those writers have the mettle to withstand such hostility then they might pursue their passionate work unaffected in their unallied surrounds else to thrive in their domain they must foster a selective and receptive audience.

If general public is intolerant of my dissenting views, I would rather retreat into exclusive hangout for my personal enrichment is vital than public acquiescence. Wisdom is not marched in loud confrontation but paced reconciliation. I find intellectual evangelicals amusing for their misplaced faith in brokering with inimical crowd.

I am too diffuse in this follow-up post as my reflection is not about any specific writer or case study but the common challenges faced with opposition. Should one persist unfazed, or retreat, or be conscious of their uncooperative audience.