Pornography Law: Savita Bhabhis must go

When a certain website with pornographic content was ordered to shut shop, the debate whether the government had the right to slap such an order under the existing law came raging ahead. But then, it is not just a question of whether or not the existing law allows the government to take such a step, but whether or not the state has the right to act as the moral guardian of the people at all.

Is pornography detrimental to the public good to the extent of requiring state intervention and regulation? If pornography is wrong, what kind of wrong it is? If sexuality is natural, why should the law stand against natural human inclinations and ban content depicting sexual act? Why do natural instincts come in conflict with the moral values of a society? And why should the principles of morality be preferred over natural human instincts and desires?

These questions have to be answered in order to supply the required moral ground to the laws that seek to regulate pornography in any form. The distinction between erotica and sleaze, lust and desire, lovemaking and carnal sex must also be understood the same way as the difference between a connoisseur of cuisines and a glutton is understood. The issues involved, both legal and moral, are a little too complex because they are fundamentally about the longstanding battle between reason and instincts that continues to be at the very heart of all moral debates. If only one of the two had existed, we would possibly never face a moral dilemma, for it is doubtful if we would even have any moral values to start with.

The sense of decency and the idea of justice are the natural byproducts of man’s social and cultural evolution. Restraints on man’s natural instincts are not simply ‘symbolic’ of his cultural evolution, but are completely functional, as they keep man from reverting into a coarse bunch of disorderly instincts. This explains why all religions preach selflessness and self-restraint.

Natural instincts come in conflict with social and ethical norms of the civilized world because they are fiercely individualistic with self-preservation and perpetuation of one’s own kind as its central objectives. Since instincts have no content of rationality, they do not recognize the concept of human development through mutual cooperation, or, for that matter, of a culturally evolved existence. Therefore, the drive to preserve oneself and to perpetuate one’s kind through procreation comes naturally; and, being primordial, it is extremely powerful. Sexual conduct and misconduct is, therefore, instinctual in nature. Whether a certain sexually inclined act falls within the description of ‘misconduct’ or not has to be seen against the social and cultural backdrop of the society and people concerned.

The legal ambit of acceptable sexual conduct is quite understandably smaller in scope and expanse than the social and cultural norms pertaining to decency, which leaves sufficient grey area for such conduct that is not strictly illegal but is not completely acceptable either. Pornography falls in this area, which is why the laws governing pornographic content both online and offline vary a great deal from one part of the world to other and the extent of restriction ranges from total ban to almost no-ban situations.

The Internet, with its ever-increasing penetration and convenience of use coupled with the extreme difficulties involved in monitoring website content, has become the most prominent carrier and disseminator of pornographic content.

Pornography is generally understood as explicit portrayal of sexual acts for the purpose of sexual stimulation. The natural purpose of sexual act is procreation and the pleasure derived from the act has possibly been provided by nature as a motivation for human beings to act towards preservation and propagation of their own kind. The desire to reproduce is not exclusive to human beings, but to use sex as entertainment certainly is.

The kind of pornography that generally falls foul with the law across the world is such form of perverse sexual entertainment that has no purpose other than pandering to the prurient human tendencies.

In India, Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1840, prohibits the printing, sale and distribution of ‘obscene books’ and material and defines those thus: “…a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.]

However, the Exception to the provision expressly excludes such content that “is in the interest of science, literature, art of learning or other objects of general concern”. The Exception also expressly protects depictions on ancient monuments and temples allowing religion and culture to have its take on sex and the associated issues.

The Exception clearly demonstrates that the law leaves sufficient room for artistic, scientific and religious endeavours that might be erotic in nature. What it seeks to proscribe is depiction of sexually explicit material for the sole purpose of pleasure. In other words, the law is against sex as entertainment.

The spirit of the pornography law remains intact in the Information Technology Act, 2000, which applies to website content. The provisions under the IT Act use the same terminology as used under the IPC and retain the same exceptions.

It is, therefore, evident that in India so long as sexual depictions are directed towards any goal other than entertainment, it is permissible. But if the purpose is sexual enjoyment or stimulation alone, the content would face the axe unless it could be shown to have some artistic value.

In the United States, the legal position of Internet pornography is not uniform across the various states with many states having banned the making and distribution of adult films putting such activity in the category of prostitution. For the purpose of deciding whether the material under question is obscene and deserves to be banned, Miller’s Test laid down by the US Supreme Court in the 1973 case Miller v. California is employed. It is this decision of the Supreme Court that allowed the States to make their own laws to regulate pornography. According to the three pronged Miller’s Test, what needs to be considered is:

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

2. Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,

3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The use of the expression ‘contemporary community standards’ amply demonstrates that the standards of decency may vary from one part of the country to another even in a relatively homogenous country like the US. However, at the same time, the spirit of the pornography law in India as reflected in the relevant provisions of the IPC and that in the US, as evident from Miller’s Test and other laws, remains much the same despite the vast social, economic and cultural differences between the two nations.

Therefore, it is easy to conclude that although to judge what is obscene may, to some extent, require a social and cultural context, but pornography is tolerated at best with law outlining the extent of such toleration. Pornography is, thus, a grudging concession.

And Savita Bhabhi?

Savita Bhabhi is an Indian cartoon pornographic website featuring the sexual escapades of an Indian housewife by the name Savita in explicit graphic detail. The lady has no moral hang-ups regarding her illicit liaisons and is also equally comfortable with salesmen, young boys living in the neighbourhood and her own cousin, not to speak of her husband’s friends. There is no real story, no conflict situation and no character development worth the name. In short, the raunchy stories have no literary inclinations. Mrs. Savita Patel’s sexual exploits are not only adulterous but also border on incest, and she remains remorseless about them and does it all with unreal abandon. Naturally, her human self and the social setting she operates in has been conveniently taken out of the equation to allow as much room as possible to raw lust turning Savita into a sex doll instead of a real character.

Adultery is a criminal offence in India and the very idea of incest is extremely offensive to the Indian mindset, to say the least. Whether the relevant Indian law is employed or the Miller Test, Savita Bhabhi would find it hard to wriggle through the legal net.

Furthermore, the name ‘Savita Bhabhi’ itself is offensive because ‘bhabhi’ means elder brother’s wife (sister-in-law) in Hindi and Hindustani. The way it is used in the Savita Bhabhi stories, it automatically takes on a sexual hue, which certainly would not be acceptable to an ‘average’ Indian ‘applying contemporary community standards’. The content certainly has the tendency to ‘deprave and corrupt’, for glorification of adultery and incest can only be seen as inspiring and endorsing extreme sexual depravity.

The argument of ‘private conduct’ and of minimal state interference in citizens’ private lives is not an iron defence in this regard because although accessing pornographic material in private remains within one’s private domain, but its influence on the mind of the person concerned remains and carries into his social life. Besides, there is a clear danger of underage boys accessing such material, and the ill-effect of such depictions on their very impressionable minds can be devastating not only for them, but also for the society. Therefore, when Savita Bhabhi was ordered to pack her bags, the government did the right thing. Savita Bhabhis must go.

Originally written for and published in LAWYERS UPDATE [April 2010 Issue; Vol. XVI, Part 4]

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Pornography Law: Savita Bhabhis must go

  1. Now what i don’t get here is,
    If savitabhabhi shows explicitly indecent material that has no other purpose except using sex as a form of entertainment” then what about other porn sites which are fully operational in india regardless of the fact that they show audio and video versions, whereas saitabhabhi is just a a cartoon…
    Why not ban all of them?
    Even they lack a a story and i guess have no “artistic value” and portray incest and adultery and much more then that….

    And why not ban the open selling of porn videos at pallika bazaar?
    And y not ban prostitution at GB road?
    Nothing is hidden from the eyes of law, right?
    When Police itself receives “hafta” from the shopkeepers who sell such videos then y doesn’t the law intervene??

    And teenagers, cant anyway be stopped from the access.
    There are many other sites running successfully to “entertain” them…..

    Plus, savitabhabhi is still operational under the name “kirtu.com”.

    Moreover, incest and adultery being new to india?????
    This was shocking!
    What about prithviraj chauhan marrying his cousin sanyogita????
    What about Chandra dev having sex with ahilya?
    and many more…..
    Indian history is ful of adultery and polygamy and polyandry and incest…..
    Big deal, if savita bhabhi does that….
    Media is the portayal of the society, not vice versa……

    As far as the name “savitabhabhi” is concerned, “bhabhi” is a general term by which housewives are called, doesn’t mean necessarily the brother’s wife….

    And why not ban the publication of “KAMASUTRA” by vatsyaayan?
    I fail to understand what artistic value does it have when it explains in great detail 72 different positions of sex???
    Is that not vulgar?

    1. Can a murderer argue that he be punished only when all other murders have been and not before? Failure of implementation does not confer legality upon an otherwise illegal act.

      Selling of obscene material is already crime, and so is prostitution. Police is the enforcement agency. If it fails to enforce the law, it doesn’t mean there the act in question is legal.

      Where has it been implied that sexual misconduct is new to India? Furthermore, should murder be taken off the statute book as crime because it has been around for a long time? An act’s being common does not make it morally or legally right.

      ‘Bhabhi’ is a Hindi term with a clear meaning. It means what it means. It is not a synonym for ‘housewives’.

      Explaining sex positions is not vulgar. If description of acts was vulgar, even dictionary and medical books would be considered vulgar. Moreover, even erotic literature is not per se vulgar although it is meant to entertain.

      If you don’t understand the distinction between Kaamasutra, a highly regarded piece of literature, and Savita Bhabhi, a cheap pornographic website, there is little that can be done about it.

  2. I never said, kamasutra and a cheap pornographic website are the same, nor am i meant that a murderer can argue that other murderers aren’t being punished so, he should be left too….
    I am simply saying that if such a step is being taken for one particular site, then many others, if not all others, should meet the same fate. Why ban just one site, why not ban ‘pornography’ itself?
    Moreover, “bhabhi” means literally elder brother’s wife, but the context in which its used here, is not suggestive of the relation. There are hell lot of women who are the “bhabhi” for the entire locality, irrespective of the fact that they are related to none of them.

    And moreover, i took up the Palika bazaar example just because those videos are far more vullgar then this site. A robber is being punished, while a murderer is not?
    Strange!

    Furthermore, i not in my wildest dreams can make the mistake of comparing kamasutra with a cheap pornographic site.
    I am not comparing it, i am just stating that the subject matter remains the same. Its just that whatever has been written in kamasutra, has been shown in pictorial form and probably in a more ‘open’ form in the site.
    A person would get the same level of stimulation by accessing both, and i suppose more by reading kamasutra, because it leaves a scope of fantasizing whereas this site makes u focus on savitabhabhi and her sexual adventures only….

    The basic concept of sex is explained in detail in kamasutra, And all other porn materials or books are just a medium to put that forward…

    If erotic literature is not considered vulgar, then what’s the problem with this site? It just adds some pictures and that too in a cartoon form.

    i am not saying it isn’t vulgar, but then many other things which are far more vulgar are in operation, then why just catch hold of one poor thing?

    1. Pornography is already banned in India. Again, a robber being punished cannot argue that a murderer has not been punished and so he also shouldn’t be.

      The points raised have already been met implicitly either in the article itself or in my previous response to your comment. So, I can only be repetitive here, which I don’t want to be.

  3. Despite the fact that pornography is already banned, so many sites, videos and other material is freely operational, out in the open?
    Wow! That’s strange!
    And if u are punishing a person for one crime, first ensure that others doing the same crime have been punished or are being punished. If u fail to do so, then u can’t punish one particular person also just because he is more vulnerable. At least i believe so! That’s what we call justice. All must be treated equally for the same crime.
    Its like saying, a teacher expelled a student for cheating in the exam but didn’t even scold the other student who had leaked out the question papers a week before the exam.
    Isn’t that weird?
    Again, the difference of opinion only!!!
    This debate has no end….

    1. No criminal can be punished because all cannot be punished? First punish all and then punish this particular one, and this one is not part of the ‘all’ for some godly reason. So, we cannot start punishing because we cannot figure out who is the first in the order primarily because we have no idea what kind of order they are to be arranged in — chronological or some other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s