Emraan, Exclusivity and the Pluralistic Indian Society

In a country as diverse as ours, where even physical characteristics differ drastically from one region to another, discrimination towards fellow countrymen is commonplace. Add to this the aspect of multitudinous religions, and the stage is set for exclusivity and narrow mindedness. The Emraan Hashmi episode added some sparks to the dormant, but ever present, debate on partisan housing societies in Mumbai, and raised the more fundamental question about the extent of discrimination faced by the largest minority. From my understanding of the incident, the events took place as stated below.

Mr. Hashmi, on being forewarned (by a broker) about his slim chance of getting an apartment in a particular society on the basis of his religion, decided to put it to the test. The Seller and Buyer agreed to the terms and all that remained was a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the society. The society delayed granting the NOC beyond a comfortable period of time which immediately brought Mr. Hashmi and his family into action. His family first tried to meet the society members, which the members construe as “barging in forcibly”. Finally the society declined the NOC on the basis of Mr. Hashmi’s onscreen antics as a ‘serial kisser’ thus giving the entire episode a narrow moral dimension.

The moment he was denied an NOC, Mr. Hashmi’s doubts were confirmed. He then decided to do all that was in his power to expose the ‘ulterior motives’ of the society. He leveraged his celebrity status and put into action the all pervasive and powerful media, squarely charging the Nibbana Housing Society with discrimination against Muslims. The consequences of placing the issue in the public domain were two fold. First, the minority community’s feelings of being discriminated against were accentuated, and second, the ‘opposite camp’ immediately charged Mr. Hashmi for playing up the minority card even when no discrimination existed. For every action there is at least an attempt at an equal and opposite reaction.

Both perspectives are parochial in their own way. At times the Muslim community puts faith in a flawed assumption that every Muslim is discriminated against, and in the context of finding accommodation in Mumbai, it is hard for a Muslim to gain admission to ANY housing society. This is an unacceptable generalization. There is no doubt that discrimination on the basis of religion exists in our country, and as the largest minority Muslims are at a greater risk of bearing the brunt of this discrimination, but this does not mean that the problem is faced by Muslims alone, or that every housing society in Mumbai discriminates against Muslims. On the other hand, some representatives of the majority community show no hesitation in accusing minority communities (particularly Muslims) of raking up controversies on false pretences. This argument again creates friction between religious communities and harbours gross generalizations, after all, it would be ignorant to assume that any Muslim who complains of discrimination is subverting the truth.

In the case of the issue at hand, i.e. Emraan Hashmi Vs The Nibbana Housing Society, the former seems to have an upper hand in the battle of allegations. Although the society claims that Mr. Hashmi’s onscreen frivolity is the primary reason for withholding the NOC, the major flaw in the society’s argument is that there are already a number of people associated with the film industry currently living in the building (although none currently active in Bollywood). The biggest chink in the armour is the presence of the Prem Chopra (known for his onscreen notoriety). It is unfortunate that an artist with a long and fruitful association with the Indian film industry has to be dragged into a sleaze contest, but the argument is a valid one. If onscreen ‘obscenity’ is the yardstick by which the society judges prospective inclusions from the film industry, then it must justify the denial of an NOC to Mr. Hashmi, while cordially entertaining Mr. Chopra. Further, the acclaim, respect and remuneration that Bollywood celebrities enjoy today are unparalleled vis-à-vis Mr. Chopra’s heyday. Lastly, time and westernisation have inevitably broadened the tolerance levels regarding onscreen intimacy as compared to yesteryears.

The other perspective to the issue is the heavily accented contention forwarded by Mr. Salman Khan. In his view, the present celebrity status of actors in the film industry may itself by the primary reason behind the refusal by the society. Today’s ‘hero’ inescapably comes with the package of media scrutiny (paparazzi), groups of excitable fans and a loud party culture. This could be one of the factors considered by the conservative and virtuous society, ushering in a new era of ‘celebrity discrimination’.

To decide whether the truth lies in Mr. Hashmi’s allegations, Nibbana Society’s counter-allegations, Mr. Khans contentions, or somewhere in between, is the prerogative of the State Minority Commission, which has been approached by Mr. Hashmi. Unfortunately judging the facts may be somewhat of a herculean task in itself due to the problem of justiciability in matters of discrimination. It would be inviting trouble if prejudiced individual or society would cite the reason for denial of a house in a particularly locality or building as “we do not allow X community”. The house could be denied under any pretext, and sometimes the person discriminated against may not even realise it. Here the benefit of doubt must go to the official mechanisms that have been put in place to deal with any such incident, which may come under the purview of law & order, judiciary, or in this case, the State Minority Commission.

Mumbai, as the commercial capital of the country, exemplifies the diversity of our country, and the diverse discrimination that is a part and parcel of it. Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, while defending Mr. Hashmi on popular media channels, extended a pertinent example. His daughter Pooja Bhatt could not inherit her mother’s house because she was a Hindu, while her mother (along with the respective housing society) was Christian. In the same city, an urban and popularly moderate Muslim couple such as Javed Akhtar and Shabana Azmi complained of the hurdles they had to face in order to get accommodation.
From my own experience in Mumbai, when three of my friends decided to take up an apartment in college, they too saw the inclusive tendencies of Mumbai housing societies first hand. On choosing an apartment in Prabha Devi, they realised that the society harboured a heavy pro-Gujarati bias; therefore entry to non-Gujaratis was highly unlikely. This however worked in their favour as one of the three was a Gujarati. These incidents bring to light discrimination on the basis of religion and region, which are the most common types of housing prejudice, not only in the Mumbai metropolis, but across the country. The question is not whether one religion or region is discriminated against or not. It is a fact that this discrimination does exist, and not only against a minority religion, but also against the majority religion in some cases. The fundamental question is: To what extent, and on what grounds, can a housing society persevere to retain its socio-cultural identity, whether linked to religion, cast, language or region? In my opinion, there can be no grounds for maintaining inclusive societies in a pluralistic and drastically diverse country as ours, as it can only lead to further parochialism and enhance an insular mentality.

Today we live in the era of Right to Information and Right to Education. We are living in times where one of the largest political parties is struggling for survival after being dealt a blow by the very people who it was trying to divide through partisan politics. As we make the transition from dormant spectatorship to an active and aware society which better understands its roles and responsibilities, we must appreciate the benefits of long term accordance rather than short term self interest. Herein lies the importance of individual choice; Choosing reconciliation rather than confrontation, choosing tolerance rather than hatred and choosing experience rather than hearsay. In a country where its own citizens face various forms of discrimination on the basis of race, region and religion, only a gradual change in the mindsets of civil society can lead to a harmonious and heterogeneous society. Only if we sow the seeds of tolerance today, can we bear the fruit of peaceful coexistence tomorrow.