How to read cartoons

Retaining a sense of humour may be difficult in an era of heightened sensitivities and political correctness, but it is not impossible. In fact, it may be the only thing that keeps you ticking in difficult times. Like when you importantly switch on television news and have the funny feeling that you may be watching the Cartoon Network.
However, the controversy over the legendary Shankar’s Ambedkar-Nehru cartoon is not funny. It is not a huge surprise either. In an age where everyone brandishes a right to be hurt as their main weapon of visibility, and political parties fall over each other to clutch at vote banks by appeasing identity groups, it is not at all surprising that a cartoon that has Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, a snail and two whips in one frame would lead to some controversy or the other. What is surprising is the way we — the audible people of a lively, vocal, democratic nation — have responded to it.
Personally, I do not find the cartoon offensive. It shows, as most of us know by now, Dr Ambedkar trying to goad a snail labelled “Constitution” along its path with a whip, and an impatient Nehru lashing his own whip in the background. The fuss is about the NCERT reproducing this 1949 cartoon in a current Class XI textbook. The text accompanying it (captioned “Cartoonist’s impression of the ‘snail’s pace’ with which the Constitution was made”) asks the student why they thought the Constitution took almost three years to make — expecting them to think about it and find the answer, elaborated upon elsewhere in the book. “The voluminous debates in the Constituent Assembly, where each clause of the Constitution was subjected to scrutiny and debate, is a tribute to public reason at its best,” it specified. The reason for this admirable dedication to time-consuming democratic debate was also explained: “The Constitution drew its authority from the fact that members of the Constituent Assembly engaged in what one might call public reason.”
But because I don’t find it offensive does not mean that someone else will not. We each have our own way of seeing, which is informed by our own experiences, our hurt, our awareness, our field of vision. Texts, especially images, can be open to constant reinterpretation. But that does not change the original intent of the text which is usually clear to a sympathetic reader.
So the argument that since no one objected to the cartoon for 63 years there can be no objection to it now is flawed. Sensitivities change with new information, heightened awareness and being conscious of our right to object. If some find the cartoon offensive today, their hurt must be addressed and the cartoon examined scrupulously and fairly, within its context.
And Parliament could be one of the platforms for it. It could debate the issue, ask for expert opinion, have an informed discussion. But genuflecting to political unreason does not help. Dalit diva Mayawati demanded strong and immediate government action, if not she would “not allow the House to function”. Ram Vilas Paswan, a feisty leader in urgent search of followers, demanded that the guilty be booked under the SC/ST Act and the NCERT be shut down. Practically all others raged and lamented. Not just the cartoon, the whole textbook must be withdrawn, some demanded. And cartoons should be banned from textbooks, they chorused, because “depicting politicians in a poor light in textbooks for children of impressionable age erodes their faith in democracy and in politicians”. Swiftly the minister apologised, the textbook with the cartoon was withdrawn and a vow to review other NCERT textbooks of the senior classes made.
Now this is not really parliamentary debate. Brushing aside the authority of autonomous institutions like the NCERT to score brownie points in Parliament does not strengthen our nation or its educational foundations. And by cunningly bowing to “hurt sentiments” and blackmail we slide further down the democracy-busting slippery slope of mob censorship and unreasonable muscleflexing that has scarred our recent political history.
In fact, there has been a worrying trend of attempting mind control through accessible reading material. The NCERT’s admirable attempt under the first UPA government to cleanse texts “saffronsied” by the NDA and make them interesting and balanced, had led to these new texts with cartoons that all our politicians are now rallying against.
Not surprising. Governments on a weak wicket fear cartoons. Weak leaders hate cartoons. Autocrats dread cartoons. Satire is dangerous. It can cut you down laughing. Which is why we need to read a cartoon sympathetically. When we use cartoons for narrow gains in identity politics it robs our democracy of a very powerful weapon.
Recently, West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee got a university professor arrested for forwarding a funny, clean, child-friendly cartoon about her on the Internet — after she replaced Dinesh Trivedi with Mukul Roy. Since Queen Banerjee is a woman, Prof. Ambikesh Mahapatra was arrested on charges of eve-teasing, defamation, humiliating a woman and causing offence using a computer. And because the cartoon had her saying “vanish” she saw it is a murder plot by the CPI(M). “It is a political conspiracy to murder me,” Queen B declared.
Banning cartoons from school texts is a kind of censorship. How long can we protect 16-year-olds from multidimensional real life, keep them locked up in a safe black-and-white world? And can we, in an age where teenagers are flourishing as reasonable individuals on the Internet, and are allowed to watch adult-like films rated PG at age 15? Today’s children have a wider knowledge base than when their parents were schoolkids, they also have access to more viewpoints and suffer less from the babe-in-the-woods syndrome. Surely they can handle cartoons and thought-triggers? Besides, ages ago Chanakya advised “Praapte tu shodashe varshe putram mitravadaacharet (Once he is 16, a son should be treated as a friend).”
By the way, at age 16, Ambedkar had passed school and had taken on the adult world. Looking at him only as a demigod is not enough. We need to follow his advice. Personality cults detract from real issues. Symbols are important, but symbolism cannot replace what needs to be urgently done. The periodic celebratory garlanding of Ambedkar’s images doesn’t stop atrocities against Dalits.
Now that all of Parliament is ready to fight for Ambedkar, let’s see some positive change in the way India treats Dalits. Let’s see an end to caste-based atrocities, proper punishment to those found guilty, equal treatment across castes and an immediate end to horrific hereditary professions like manual scavenging.

The writer is editor of The Little Magazine. She can be contacted at: sen@littlemag.com