The LHSS Collective, in collaboration with the Literary and Debating Society of MNLU Mumbai, concluded the 1st National Essay writing competition 2024. The competition was a resounding success, with several quality submissions received. The theme of the competition was “Fiction’s Reality: Literary Engagements with Life”. Below are the top 5 Essays in the competition.

“RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE AND LEGAL NARRATIVE: EXPLORING ISLAMIC LAW AND LGBTQ+ RIGHTS AND THEIR LITERACY REFLECTIONS”

ABSTRACT

This essay considers the overlap between Islamic perspectives on LGBTQ+ issues and the moral quandaries depicted in legal literary fiction. Concerning the beautiful narratives in both religious doctrine and fictional legal thrillers, my essay explores how Islamic teachings – assigned moral authority by law enforcement powers have long prohibited non-heteronormative pair-bonded relationships produce a set of juridical-ethical problems that seriously engage with contemporary discussions concerned about ‘Other peoples.’ It explores the historical and scriptural bases for these prohibitions and examines how they affect contemporary legal systems within Muslim-majority nations and public discourse surrounding morality and law. The essay further links such religious outlooks with the ethical dilemmas in legal fiction, which often depict characters wrestling with tensions between individual morals and obligations as a lawyer. Through this layering of the ethical dilemmas encountered by legal professionals in fiction and consequences shown from a real-world lens to Islamic law on LGBTQ+ issues, the essay exposes how complex acquiring social justice can be when confronting it through means controlled or governed by laws. Overall, it maintains that religious instruction and literary narrative provide much-needed perceptual frameworks for a humanizing appraisal of constitutional/human rights jurisprudence capable of awakening sensibility to the presence/responsiveness of justice/fairness/morality in an arrayed multitude upon which universal sentiments based on law-generated rules emanate from diverse epigenetic traditions.

INTRODUCTION

This essay explores how Islamic teachings and legal principles intersect, particularly when examining Islamic views on LGBTQ+ issues alongside the ethical dilemmas presented in legal literature. In many Muslim-majority countries, Islamic teachings have significantly shaped societal attitudes toward non-heteronormative relationships, drawing on religious texts like the Quran, Hadith, and even the Bible. The story of Hazrat Luut, a figure in these texts, has been interpreted in Islamic tradition as strictly prohibiting same-sex relationships, based on divine law. Legal literature often portrays the ethical challenges individuals face within the legal system, where they must balance personal ethics with professional duties. This research aims to compare these narratives with the ethical and legal issues raised by Islamic teachings on LGBTQ+ matters, highlighting how religious beliefs and legal storytelling influence our understanding of justice, morality, and law in a globalized world.

The authors will emphasize the challenges of reconciling traditional religious beliefs with modern discussions on human rights and social justice. Understanding the historical, religious, and legal contexts that shape current debates on morality, law, and human rights in Muslim-majority countries is crucial. These regions have long-standing traditions and interpretations that deeply influence their societies and legal systems. Religious doctrines, particularly those based on the Quran and Hadith, play a significant role in guiding legal decisions and shaping public opinion on LGBTQ+ rights. Many of these countries incorporate Sharia law into their legal systems, directly reflecting these religious principles and impacting contemporary legal practices and human rights discussions. Understanding how these elements are intertwined can help us navigate the complexities of applying social justice and human rights principles in these cultural and religious contexts, fostering more informed and respectful global conversations.

THE STORY OF PROPHET LUT 

The story starts with Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) realizing that his people were deeply involved in wrong actions. They were not just doing wrong things; the Quran describes their actions as “filthy.” Prophet Lut warned them, saying, “Do you not fear Allah? I am a trustworthy messenger sent to you with a message to fear Allah. How can you engage in same-sex relations and prefer them over women? You are going against Allah’s commands.” Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) highlighted that their sin was not just in committing sodomy, but they were the first people in history to do so, which is why the term “sodomy” comes from the name of their city, Sodom.

Besides engaging in sodomy, the people of Lut were also known for their crimes, like robbing travelers. They would gather in clubs to encourage and engage in evil deeds. Prophet Lut condemned their open acts of homosexuality, which they did without any shame. He distanced himself from their actions, saying, “I am not part of you, and I will never condone your actions. I warn you of severe punishment from Allah.” In response, the people of Lut planned to expel him from their community, accusing him of being overly pure. They said, “Lut, if you don’t stop what you’re saying, we will kick you out.” Lut warned them that Allah would bring punishment upon them, advising them to choose a better path, but they challenged him, saying, “If you are truthful, bring the punishment now.”

Prophet Lut prayed to Allah for help against his people and to protect his family. In response, Allah sent three angels to Prophet Ibrahim (peace be upon him) who then proceeded to visit Lut. The angels arrived in the form of handsome men, and when Lut’s daughters saw them, they were worried about what the townspeople might do. Lut invited the angels to his home, hoping to keep them safe, but his wife betrayed him by informing the townspeople. A large crowd gathered at Lut’s house, demanding to have their way with the guests. Lut tried to reason with them, even offering his daughters in marriage as an alternative, but the people refused, stating they were only interested in the men. At this critical moment, the angels revealed their true identities to Lut and assured him that the people would not harm him. They instructed him to leave the town with his family and not look back. The next morning, the people of Sodom faced severe punishment. The angels lifted the entire town, turned it upside down, and dropped it back down. Then, stones from the sky, each marked with the name of a person, rained down, destroying the entire community, including Lut’s wife. This punishment serves as a reminder of the consequences of disobeying Allah’s commands. The remains of the town, now known as the Dead Sea, are a lasting sign of what happened to the people of Lut.

The overlap between Islamic perspectives on LGBTQ+ issues and the moral quandaries depicted in legal fiction highlights how religious teachings and legal narratives profoundly shape our understanding of justice and morality. Islamic law, rooted in the Quran and Hadith, has long prohibited same-sex relationships, reflecting a moral stance that many believe cannot coexist with the rights and freedoms championed by modern human rights discourses. The Quran’s teachings, supported by historical and scriptural foundations, present an explicit prohibition against non-heteronormative relationships, creating a firm barrier that many in Islamic societies are reluctant to challenge or reconsider. This barrier is mirrored in the ethical dilemmas faced by characters in legal fiction, where the tension between personal morals and societal obligations is often explored. The narratives suggest a conflict between individual rights and established moral frameworks in both cases, making pursuing justice and equality particularly complex. However, the situation is not uniform across all Muslim-majority nations. Some countries, like Lebanon, have begun to challenge these traditional prohibitions. In 2014, a judge in Lebanon’s Jdeideh court invalidated Article 534 of the Lebanese penal code, effectively decriminalizing homosexuality. Additionally, the Lebanese National Center for Psychiatry has declassified non-heterosexual orientations as mental disorders, signaling a shift towards greater acceptance. Similarly, in Kazakhstan, same-sex sexual activity is legal, though same-sex couples still lack many of the legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples. These examples show that even within the Islamic world, there are varying degrees of acceptance and legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights. In contrast, India, a country where multiple religions coexist, faces its own set of challenges. The deeply rooted religious beliefs in Indian society can make the acceptance of LGBTQ+ rights contentious, potentially leading to societal friction. The coexistence of different religious and moral perspectives creates a complex landscape where legal and ethical norms are constantly negotiated and redefined., while Islamic law has traditionally opposed same-sex relationships, there are instances where these prohibitions are being challenged, both within the Islamic world and in diverse societies like India. This ongoing tension between religious doctrines, legal frameworks, and individual rights underscores the difficulty of achieving social justice in a world where deeply held beliefs and modern values often collide.

ITS INTERPRETATION

The story of Prophet Lut is mentioned in both the Quran and the Bible, with similar themes. The Quran describes how the people of Lut engaged in acts that were considered immoral, including same-sex relations, and how God ultimately punished them through the destruction of their city. While the Quranic narrative does not specify that “everyone” in the town engaged in these acts, it does emphasize that the behavior was widespread and that the community had deviated from moral and ethical standards. Islamic teachings often use this story as a moral lesson about the consequences of turning away from God’s guidance and engaging in what is considered sinful behavior.

Islam, like many other religious traditions, maintains the belief in the existence of two primary genders—male and female—as part of its understanding of human nature and creation. This belief is rooted in Islamic teachings and scriptures, including the Quran and Hadith, which emphasize the complementary roles of men and women in society and family life.

Creation Narrative: Islamic teachings are based on the belief that God created humanity in male and female pairs to complement each other and fulfill specific roles within the family and society. This is often cited from verses in the Quran, such as Surah An-Nisa (4:1), which mentions the creation of humans from a single soul and its mate.

Reproduction and Continuity of Life: Islam emphasizes the importance of marriage between a man and a woman for procreation, which ensures the continuation of human life. The natural biological reproduction process is crucial to fulfilling God’s command to multiply and maintain the human race.

Story of Prophet (Lut): The story of Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) is often cited in discussions about homosexuality in Islamic teachings. According to the Quran, the people of Lut engaged in same-sex relations, and God condemned this behavior. The punishment that befell them is described as a divine response to their transgressions, including their rejection of traditional heterosexual relationships.

Scientific Perspective on Reproduction: From a biological standpoint, sexual reproduction is essential for the continuation of many species, including humans. The argument often presented in religious contexts is that if everyone were to engage exclusively in same-sex relationships, natural reproduction would cease, leading to the extinction of humanity. This line of reasoning aligns with the traditional view that heterosexual relationships are necessary for the survival of the human species.

Different Interpretations and Views: It’s important to note that interpretations of religious texts can vary, and other scholars and communities may emphasize different aspects of these teachings. While traditional Islamic teachings uphold the belief in two genders and the importance of heterosexual marriage, there are also ongoing discussions and debates within Muslim communities about gender identity and sexual orientation and how these issues should be understood in the context of contemporary society.

The emphasis on two genders and the condemnation of same-sex relations in Islam is rooted in religious teachings, particularly the creation narrative and the story of Prophet Lut. These teachings are intertwined with the belief in the importance of reproduction and the continuation of human life, which is a crucial aspect of fulfilling God’s will. However, interpretations and discussions on these topics can vary, reflecting the diversity of thought within the Muslim world.

RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE

Islam traditionally recognizes only two genders: male and female. The concept of a third gender is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, and this has influenced the understanding and interpretation of gender roles within Islamic teachings. According to traditional Islamic jurisprudence, individuals are expected to align with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex, which is typically determined by their physical traits, such as the presence of more estrogen or testosterone. For those born with intersex traits or those who identify as transgender, Islamic teachings suggest that they should align with one of the two recognized genders based on their predominant physical or psychological traits. However, the idea of transitioning to a gender that is different from one’s assigned sex at birth is generally considered haram (forbidden) in Islam because it is seen as altering the natural order created by Allah. Given that the Quran does not explicitly recognize a third gender, extending specific rights to individuals who identify as transgender or non-binary becomes challenging within traditional Islamic frameworks. This lack of recognition has led to limited legal and social protections for transgender individuals in many Muslim-majority countries. The tension between traditional religious views and the modern understanding of gender identity raises significant ethical and legal questions. It challenges how societies can reconcile deeply held religious beliefs with contemporary inclusivity and human rights demands. As the discourse around gender identity continues to evolve globally, these questions remain central to ongoing debates about justice, fairness, and morality in Islamic contexts.

Fazailee Sadkath, Fazailee Aamaal, Bhahisthi Zevar, And Mizbahul Makatib—are significant texts within the Islamic tradition, particularly in certain schools (Hanafia, Maaliki and shafii) of thought. These texts, like many other Islamic religious books, emphasize adherence to traditional gender roles and norms, reinforcing the idea that there are only two recognized genders in Islam: male and female. These books generally align with the teachings found in the Quran and Hadith, advocating for preserving what is seen as the natural order created by Allah. The texts often emphasize the importance of maintaining moral and ethical behavior by Islamic principles, and any deviation from these norms, including the acceptance of non-binary or transgender identities, is often viewed as haram (forbidden). Fazailee Aamaal is a collection of Islamic teachings and stories encouraging piety and adherence to Islamic law. Bhahsthi Zevar, a detailed manual for personal conduct, particularly for women, also reinforces traditional gender roles. These texts, along with others like Fazailee Sadkath and Mizbahul Makatib, serve as guides for Muslims daily, stressing the importance of following the prescribed religious and moral codes. In this context, the lack of recognition of a third gender in these texts reflects the broader Islamic view that gender is binary and that individuals should conform to the gender roles prescribed by their biological sex. This perspective further complicates the possibility of extending rights or recognition to transgender or non-binary individuals within traditional Islamic frameworks, as these concepts do not align with the teachings found in these holy books. As such, the religious and cultural norms outlined in these texts continue to influence the way gender and sexuality are understood and regulated in Muslim communities, making it challenging to integrate modern concepts of gender identity and rights into these traditional frameworks.

ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN LEGAL FICTION

Ethical dilemmas in legal fiction often revolve around the tension between personal ethics and professional obligations. Characters such as lawyers, judges, and other legal professionals find themselves in situations where their moral compass is at odds with their duties under the law. For instance, a lawyer might be morally opposed to defending a client they believe guilty, yet their professional responsibility compels them to provide the best possible defense. Similarly, a judge might be convinced of a defendant’s innocence but feel bound by the letter of the law, which requires a ruling that contradicts their judgment. These scenarios highlight a fundamental principle in law: the supremacy of the law itself. The legal system is built on the notion that the law is the ultimate authority, and legal professionals must adhere to it, even when it conflicts with their personal beliefs. The law is designed to provide a structured and impartial framework for resolving disputes, and it aims to administer justice based on established rules and precedents rather than individual moral perspectives. However, this adherence to the law can sometimes lead to challenging situations where the distinction between right and wrong becomes blurred. Legal professionals may find themselves questioning whether the law, as it stands, truly serves justice in every case. Despite these challenges, the legal system operates on the belief that, over time, the law evolves to reflect societal values and that its consistent application ultimately serves the greater good. Legal fiction is a powerful tool for exploring these ethical dilemmas, offering readers a nuanced view of the complexities of balancing legal obligations with personal morality. The narratives underscore that while the law strives to deliver justice, it is also a human construct subject to interpretation, revision, and, at times, critique. Through these stories, we gain insight into the delicate interplay between law, ethics, and justice and the ongoing struggle to navigate these often conflicting forces.

CONCLUSION

The emphasis on two genders and the condemnation of same-sex relations in Islam is rooted in religious teachings, particularly the creation narrative and the story of Prophet Lut. These teachings are intertwined with the belief in the importance of reproduction and the continuation of human life, which is a key aspect of fulfilling God’s will. However, interpretations and discussions on these topics can vary, reflecting the diversity of thought within the Muslim world. In conclusion, it is essential to recognize that no religion inherently advocates for the killing of individuals based on their actions or beliefs, especially when those actions do not cause harm to others. Religious teachings often emphasize the importance of compassion, understanding, and justice. If an individual’s actions are personal and do not disrupt the well-being of others, it is not the role of society to impose punishment. However, if certain behaviors or actions significantly impact others or disturb the social order, it may be necessary to take appropriate steps to address the situation. These steps should be guided by principles of fairness, justice, and the protection of the community, rather than by harsh or unwarranted measures.

 

 

LAW, ETHICS, AND THE LITERARY IMAGINATION: DECONSTRUCTING FICTIONAL NARRATIVES

Abstract

This essay explores the intricate interplay between law, ethics, and the literary imagination, urging a re-examination of the boundaries that traditionally separate these fields. By engaging with seminal works such as The Merchant of Venice, To Kill a Mockingbird, and the cinematic portrayal of Veerappan, the essay interrogates how fictional narratives manipulate legal principles and ethical norms, often distorting the reader’s or viewer’s moral compass. It highlights the dangers of uncritical consumption of literature and cinema, which can subtly perpetuate biases and reinforce societal inequities. The essay contends that literature, with its capacity to embody and transmit social facts, wields a profound influence on public perception and ethical discourse. However, this influence is double-edged, as narratives can either illuminate the complexities of justice or obscure them through manipulative storytelling. The essay calls for a critical, interdisciplinary approach to reading and viewing, one that recognizes the author’s or filmmaker’s biases and resists the seduction of simplistic moral conclusions. Ultimately, it advocates for a more reflective engagement with literature and cinema, recognizing their potential to shape both individual and collective ethical consciousness in an interconnected world.

The Place of Literature and Law

There is an unsettled debate within the academic community surrounding the porosity of boundaries between law and literature. The two fields have been brought together by some scholars while others maintain that this does not yield significant dividends. The rigid boundaries of the two disciplines must be transgressed to comprehensively understand their interaction and formulate an interdisciplinary approach. 

Neither law nor literature are autonomous entities, and neither can be instrumentalized to deepen the understanding of the other without accounting for several surrounding elements that shape each discipline.

James Boyd White, in his work titled “Law as Language: Reading Law and Reading Literature” has identified the common, rudimentary foundation of both law and literature to be ‘language’. For this very reason, we see them cross paths and engage with each other in an artificial discourse of disciplines. 

As humans with a tendency to engage in the meaning-making business, we unconsciously play with these boundaries and contribute to this discourse. While reading, we may immerse ourselves in the text in two ways. 

One, by creating our own meaning out of the text. Poet EE Cummins never followed grammatical rules. He wrote his poetry in a disorderly fashion; words would be spread across the page for the reader to make sense of them. This allowed the reader to read the poem as they would like and craft their own meaning out of it.

Two, by situating ourselves in the author’s world. This approach allows the reader to explore the experience, perspective and sensibilities of the author in the author’s time. For example, the Constitution is read with the Constitution Assembly debates to give meaning to a text the the authors intended. The Puttaswamy judgment was only possible due to the purposefully open and vague structure of Article 21. By reading into such provision the intent of the authors, texts can significantly be altered. 

But the author of the text often writes for an ‘ideal reader’ who is hypothetical and imaginary. The ideal reader is well-informed, competent and has an imagination of the author’s time and place. However, we are not all ideal readers and find our own ways to absorb a text. The intent of the text and its place in time and space is often not of any value.

While judgments, reports and legal commentaries constitute legal literature, they are so heavily and critically broken down that the space for the ideal reader diminishes. The construction of academic literature is constricted by the years of research scholars pour into it. The layman is at a loss for words; there is nothing more that he can say.

Books, stories, songs, cinema−such media speaks to all. It is literature that embodies social facts as understandable and relatable. But when one tells a life’s story, the story breathes and within it lives the author’s bias. There is an extensive discussion by Foucault and Roland Barthes on the death of the author once the text is in the hands of the reader. When issues as sensitive as ethics in law are addressed in literature, there must be a strangulation of the author. The author lives till he can. The reader must strive to be skeptical of the author’s narrative. 

Law and ethics have a complex interaction. When literature deals with this complex interaction, the complexity of meaning is multiplied manifold. Critical reviews of literature are thus essential. In this essay, apart from looking at theory, we also look at stories that are seen as exemplary works all over the world. In an effort to break them down, there might be a hope to see clearer, beyond the manipulation of words.

Manipulation of the Law & its Machinery: The English Classic ‘Merchant of Venice’

English Literature is lauded for its grandiose presence in the literary world. We reference the works of Shakespeare, Jane Austen and Charles Dickens. But it is also laden with moralistic views of the world. It is racist, sexist and presents a distorted image of other cultures of the world.

In the celebrated play “The Merchant of Venice”, we are faced with the grays of moral and ethical life. The fictional world of this play has led to the institutionalization of oppression in the real world. The oppression of individuals at a disadvantage has been portrayed to be effected through legally sanctioned means.

But the legal community resonates with Portia’s call for justice, speaks of the marvels of her wit and of Shylock’s cruelty. Oh, to demand a piece of flesh is grotesque. However, we fail to see Portia’s charade as a jurist as disturbing. She is invited by the court of law as an expert on the matter between Antonio and Shylock. Shylock begs to be paid; Antonio has breached the contract, after all. 

Firstly, her bias knows no bounds. She is welcomed to the court as a man. Under false pretense, she passes for a renowned, well-read, expert in Venetian law by the name of Balthazar. For the Duke, his esteem is unparalleled. She corrupts the trial with her prejudiced and vindictive way of abusing power. The reader, in the pomp of the literature, forgets that Portia is racist, embraces the harsh, antisemitic statute and lets her abhorrence for the Jew community (which Shylock belongs to) seep through when she addresses the institutions of justice as an agent of law. Her conduct would have undermined the integrity of any judiciary had it not been a work of fiction. Bassanio is her lover and Antonio’s deep connection with him cannot percolate as gross bias into Portia’s assumed role.

This role was adversarial and instrumentalized to beseech Shylock to be merciful and kind. She pleads for ‘mercy’− a resort frowned upon by the law. In India, mercy is for the President to grant. How, in this case, Shylock has become the arbiter of law to decide what is ‘just’ and ‘fair’ is truly astounding. What is more astounding is the wide approval of the reader base.

Such gross disregard for due process threatens the confidence of the public in the judiciary’s integrity. Concealment of a conflict of interest is an ethical violation irreconcilable with the ideals of justice. When justice takes a step back, and virtues and morals occupy the center stage, a courtroom does become a drama. The intrusion of Portia as a partisan defender instead of an impartial actor has compromised the sterility of the courtroom.

At the end, Shylock was ordered to convert to Christianity. A Jewish man was forced to change his faith and beliefs because the judicial machinery allowed for the oppression of an already oppressed man seeking damages, arguably undue, for a promise unfulfilled. 

Portia is undoubtedly transgressing social boundaries. A woman in a courtroom at her time would have been an atrocity. But deceit and appropriate of mechanisms is not the way for the expression of rights of any community. Manipulation is valorized in this case, and we see how law is malleable to such maneuvers without objection from laymen readers across the world. 

Warmth & Humor: Misplacement of Virtues in Legal-Ethical Dillemas 

‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ is one of the most celebrated works of fiction in the legal fraternity. Published in 1960, the novel is renowned for its warmth and humor. The themes it deals with include racial inequality and sexual abuse. There is a certain level of dissonance between the manner of presentation and the gravity of issues discussed. 

In the story, Atticus Finch, going against all odds to fight a lost battle, embodies justice. He is a hero in the eyes of Scout Finch, a young girl. She tells the story as she sees it but we fail to observe that her narrative is heavily dominated by her unconditional regard for her father. He can do no wrong for he is nothing less than a superhero to little Scout.

We become receptors of a child’s account in this book, but as readers of a book that ensnares you with its page-turner plot, we terribly falter at scrutinizing Atticus Finch. It is highly usual that the reader finds it only right to feel the same way about the protagonist as the narrator does. When the narrator is a 7-year-old little girl, there is all the more reason to rely on her innocence and first-hand experience because children can do no foul. 

By no means is this a suggestion that Harper Lee placed a child at the center stage as a manipulation tactic. However, it is an iteration of the idea that narratives are easy to get lost in. One may find oneself rooting for a robber in a movie because the background tells us where they come from, why they were compelled to do this and how systemic flaws necessitate criminal wrongs. While some of these narratives are very loud and clear, others are more subtle and work behind the curtains. Regardless, as audience, any story that is put before us must be looked at as a fabrication of multiple perspectives, creative processes and dramatic influences. Reader/viewer skepticism is essential when critically analyzing morals and ethics in law. 

In the story, Tom Robinson, a black man, is accused of raping a white woman, Mayella. Despite Atticus’ strong defense of Tom Robinson, he is sentenced to death in the end. Steven Lubet goes to the extent of saying that no real-life lawyer has done as much as Atticus Finch has done for the public perception of the legal profession. Now, the same has become a moral archetype. It is a reference within the legal fraternity; people often say, “Lawyers don’t only serve the rich and the influential. There are some Atticus Finches left in the world.”

But Lubet also demonstrates why Atticus Finch is not an icon or a beacon of enlightenment. The picture Atticus paints is one that shames the victim. In open society, he claims that Mayella was in love with Tom Robinson, and that her love for a black man was a matter of shame for her. The fabric of the tale is deeply rooted in suspecting the woman’s experience. 

In this, Atticus also reads into Mayella’s testimony that no white woman could consent to a black man’s touch. But since Mayella was a woman of loose character, she would often call him in for chores, seduce him and the day of the incident, she was the one who wanted to be intimate with Tom. He painted her portrait in black and white, leaving no space for Mayella’s greys. 

Atticus left us with an image of Mayella as a sexually frustrated, love-starved aggressor who is hiding from the world because no morally upright woman would act like her. But Atticus also seeded into the minds of other young women a fear they should not know−the fear of being ripped apart on the stand. The purpose of a trial is to resolve competing narrative. However, every attorney is expected to operate within the limited ethics of an insensitive system. The ‘she wanted it’ defense is not only taken in poor taste, but also alters history, both procedurally and substantively. The chilling effect cast on other women of all time is discounted. 

It is not true that advocacy would mean nothing if it does not bring out the truth, no matter how painful. When seasoned courtroom warriors advocate for rapists in court, we do not see display of extraordinary advocacy but of the oppression of the oppressed. We fail to appreciate the consistency is Mayella’s testimony and have unconditional positive regard for Scout and Atticus Finch. 

Dragging the victim through the mud for the sole purpose of freeing the guilty can either be motivated by material gains or strong moral positions. If the motivations arise from the former, the courtroom is corrupted. If it comes from the latter, then paternalism will inevitably overshadow reason. 

Stories like these, where the Mayellas of the world are scheming, plotting, vicious women not in control of their sexual desires, pathologize the victims of sexual assault. Trial lawyers act as the ultimate positivists, concerned mainly about what the law allows, they wonder little over the meaning of virtue. They create mistrust in the general public and create a judicial hunger for corroborated testimony. Projecting rape as a fantasy for a woman is not only a shameful suggestion to make but also a matter of collective failure of the community. 

When sensitive matters are trivialized by perversion through emotions, all sight is lost. When that emotion is dominantly one of innocence, it is hard to locate any sin in it. What is easier to locate is naivete, but it is highly unlikely that a pleasurable read will allow for such analytical reduction. Texts that go on to become classics often overlook the subjects they deal with, and how they shape public perception. 

Law is a gated community for professionals. The family next door fails to comprehend the nuances and intricacies of a courtroom. They look for a battle to entertain them, with blacks and whites and rights and wrongs. Once judgments and other legal texts enter into the realm of meaningful literature, a certain respect is accorded to the discipline by the author. None of this is to say that stories that touch the heart must be carefully curated so as to avoid any misconceptions about reality. The argument here is that the reader must rigorously critique the author when they can. Once such critique is in the public eye, whether it is widely read or not, there is an acknowledgment of the author’s biases. The author does not die, remains alive and concomitantly, their stories become accounts of real people. Such accounts become easier to scrutinize. The curtain of morality can only fall once the author is a person and not an abstract entity. When the curtain falls, the ethics of life and discipline easily become spectators of the show. In such a controlled audience, the words become susceptible to judgment and suspicion.

It is imperative that literature that interacts with law is looked at critically. Donning an intersubjective and interdisciplinary lens may allow for a more meaningful enjoyment of such stories without creating false impressions that leave imprints year after year in classrooms and reading circles all around the world. 

Cinema As Literature: Optics Matter

Literature is not only limited to the written word but also extends to cinema and other media of expression. Ocular drama has a more long-lasting impact on the human mind than a narrative spelt out on paper. The construction of criminality, especially, in cinema is one that has interested many legal scholars. One brilliant example is how, through cinema, people view Veerappan in the movie, ‘Killing Veerappan’.

Veerappan does not have a charming reputation, and rightly so in some contexts. But he has been sculpted by Indian cinema as a man of no moral character. For the audience, he becomes the man who kills his daughter, so the police do not catch him, in case the baby cries. In the movie, an absolutely radical narrative unfolds. He is showcased as an eccentric criminal with no regard for the forest or his family. He is a smuggler, a killer, a misogynist and a barbarian. 

What constructs Veerappan is not history but his moustache (a signifier of his wrath), his deviant facial expressions (pathologizing his criminal nature) and everything around him. No one can prove the veracity of the tall claims the movie makes. Ram Gopal Varma, in the beginning of the film, presents us with the ‘caveat’, “This is the truth as I know it.” But the caveat loses its value once he proclaims his second-hand lived experience as the ‘truth’. 

In John Berger’s ‘Ways of Seeing’, he elaborates how the process of seeing is less natural than we tend to believe. Perspective makes appearances and appearances make reality. Everything around an image or a text is part of its meaning. So, when Veerappan was placed, not in a serene forest, but in a tumultuous jungle with knives and guns surrounding him, a stranger could not have perceived him as a man with a big moustache. There, he becomes a man who will most likely kill half a dozen people. The ‘becoming’ from a lanky man with quirky walk to one of the most dangerous men on the planet is not a work of history nor of the audience, it is purely strung together through manipulated perception.

The book, ‘Birds, Beasts and Bandits: 14 Days with Veerappan’, is written by two photojournalists who were mistakenly taken as his prisoner. After 14 days, they were set free. Their experience is consolidated in this book. The two authors, Krupakar and Senani, tell us that they were astonished at the knowledge Veerappan had of the forest, that he had deep concern for the forest and was thoroughly aware of the affairs of the country and the world. Veerappan’s character sketch in the book is anti-thetical to movie. What is striking from the perspective of law is the questionable means adapted by the police force in putting an end to Veerappan’s ‘atrocities’. The movie exhibits several violations of the law, an executive overreach and a license to the law-enforcing machinery to adopt torturous means to attain their goals. 

The exoticization and demonization of tribes is prohibited by law and is disrespectful to communities the mainstream media knows little to near about. How this percolates into the morals and ethics of a legal professional who consumes such media is unimaginable. The bias and the fear such movies entrench, by virtue of being easy to consume, is highly problematic. We see more instances of subversion of law with such narratives gaining traction.

On the other hand, films like 12 Angry Men, restore faith in the adversarial and judicial system. Twelve men with twelve strong heads enter the jury room. None agrees with none. Yet they leave the room with their conscience clear, and pretense loosened. The pursuit of truth is one where all assumed morals and self-righteousness needs to be left at the door. Without this crucial step, the pursuit will be doomed from the get-go. The twelve angry men in this film are not simply men, but every member of the society who sees themselves as insignificant, small and unseen. It is nothing out of the ordinary for one to believe that ‘My one deed cannot make a difference’. But slow simmering and stripping away of preconceived notions, when combined with group efforts, actively makes them a part of the system they believed they never were a part of. 

Conclusion

In exploring the intersection of law, ethics, and narrative, it becomes evident that literature offers a unique lens through which ethical understanding and consciousness are shaped. As Roland Barthes aptly put it, “Text is a tissue of citation resulting from a thousand sources of culture.” This perspective is crucial in recognizing how literature, in both its individual and collective dimensions, contributes to ethical discourse.

In a culture driven by efficiency and speed, where narratives are often consumed for quick closure and satisfaction, there is immense value in engaging with literature that resists easy resolutions. Works like Proust’s In Search of Lost Time and Mann’s The Magic Mountain exemplify this, as they immerse readers in a world where characters and narrators grapple with uncertainty and incomplete understanding. Such novels invite readers to inhabit a space of ambiguity and reflection, fostering a recognition of the limits of self-knowledge—an essential aspect of ethical consciousness.

This recognition is particularly important in an age where the narratives we construct about ourselves often serve to pin down meaning and justify our actions, even when they do not align with our ethical beliefs. The dissonance between intention and action can lead to unethical behaviour, a point underscored by the reassurance some readers find in novels like Infinite Jest, which, despite its dark themes, resonates with readers’ inner thoughts and feelings, helping them feel less alienated.

However, the individualistic focus of modern realist novels, which typically center on the moral adventures of a single character, raises significant ethical questions. This shift reflects a broader conflation of ethics and politics, where the ethical is increasingly seen through the lens of individual identity rather than collective responsibility.

This trend towards individualism in literature mirrors the neoliberal emphasis on personal experience and unique perspectives. While such focus is valuable, it risks undermining the potential for collective action and solidarity, which are crucial in addressing global challenges. The challenge for literature, then, is to move beyond narratives that solely emphasize the individual and instead explore stories that consider crowds, communities, and non-human entities. In this context, science fiction and television, with their capacity to depict interconnected, interdependent worlds, might be better suited to awaken readers to the necessity of collective understanding and action.

Moreover, the act of reading itself—especially a diverse range of literature—plays a crucial role in shaping one’s ethical perspective. Exposure to different narratives and characters fosters a habit of reflection and moderation, preparing readers to navigate the complexities of real-life ethical situations. While Aristotle emphasized the importance of action in cultivating virtue, the formative experience of reading can similarly contribute to ethical development by encouraging readers to critically engage with the world around them.

Nevertheless, there is a tension between the instrumental use of literature for ethical instruction and the appreciation of its literary qualities. Focusing solely on extracting moral lessons from novels risks reducing them to mere vehicles for ethical propositions, neglecting their aesthetic and formal elements. Instead, literature’s ethical potential lies in its ability to embrace ambiguity and avoid definitive conclusions, inviting readers to revel in uncertainty and explore the complexities of human experience without necessarily seeking clear-cut answers.

Thus, literature serves not only as a mirror to individual psyches but also as a tool for collective ethical reflection, challenging readers to think beyond themselves and consider the broader implications of their actions within a shared, interconnected world. This dual role of literature—shaping both individual and collective ethical consciousness—reinforces its significance in contemporary society and its potential to inspire a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the moral complexities we face.

The courtroom of dreams: How Kafka’s “The Trial” reshapes our understanding of Due process

Abstract

Franz Kafka’s “The Trial” serves as a profound exploration of due process and its psychological impact on the individual. This essay examines how Kafka’s surreal narrative reshapes our understanding of legal systems and their societal implications. Through the lens of Josef K.’s nightmarish journey, we analyse the novel’s distorted legal landscape, contrasting it with modern expectations of justice. The absence of fundamental due process elements—such as the right to know one’s charges and the presumption of innocence—is scrutinized, revealing the potential for systemic abuse of power.

We delve into the psychological toll of opaque legal proceedings, exploring how uncertainty and powerlessness can erode an individual’s sense of self and reality. The essay also considers the broader societal implications of Kafka’s vision, drawing parallels between the novel’s absurdist bureaucracy and contemporary concerns about justice systems.

Furthermore, we examine the enduring relevance of “The Trial” in modern legal discourse, from issues of government surveillance to the challenges posed by AI in judicial processes. By analysing Kafka’s work, this essay aims to highlight the critical importance of transparent, fair legal systems in maintaining both individual rights and societal stability, while cautioning against the dangers of unchecked authority and bureaucratic opacity.

Introduction 

“Someone must have been telling lies about Josef K., he knew he had done nothing wrong but, one morning, he was arrested.”

With these haunting words, Franz Kafka plunges us into the nightmarish world of “The Trial”. It is a novel that defies our expectations of justice and rationality. As Josef K. Stumbles through a labyrinthine legal system, we find ourselves questioning not just the nature of guilt and innocence, but the very foundations of due process that we hold very dear to ourselves in this modern society. Through Kafka’s distorted lens, we are forced to confront uncomfortable truths about power and bureaucracy, and what place an individual holds within the machinery of justice. 

The genius of “The Trial” lies in its ability to translate abstract legal concepts into visceral, psychological experiences. As we follow Josef K.’s futile attempts to navigate his prosecution, we feel the weight of uncertainty, the creeping paranoia, and the gradual erosion of self that comes from facing an inscrutable system. This psychological novel serves as a stark warning about the human cost of legal systems that lack transparency and accountability.

We shall explore how “The Trial” reshapes our understanding of the due process. We see how it does so while challenging our assumptions about fairness, transparency, and the rights of the accused. By examining Kafka’s surreal courtroom drama, we can gain insight into the psychological impact of opaque legal systems. Along with that, the societal implications of unchecked authority and the enduring relevance of these themes in our contemporary world.

Kafka’s Distorted Legal System: A Mirror to Our Fears

Imagine waking up one day to find police in your bedroom, telling you you’re under arrest. You ask why, but they won’t say. You’re not taken to jail, but told to wait for further instructions. You go to work, but everyone seems to know about your “crime.” You’re called to attend a hearing in a dusty attic, where the judges hide behind curtains. Welcome to Franz Kafka’s world in “The Trial.” It is when the law becomes a nightmare. Kafka shows us our deepest fears of law. He shows us a legal system that’s like a funhouse mirror – it takes something familiar and twists it into something scary and unrecognizable.  Think about the last time you got a letter from the government or had to go to court for something small like a traffic ticket. Remember that knot in your stomach? That worry that you might have done something wrong without even knowing it? That’s the feeling Kafka cranks up to eleven in his book.

In our normal world, we expect courts to be organized, judges to be fair, and the rules to be clear. We believe that if we’re accused of something, we’ll be told what it is and given a chance to defend ourselves. But in Kafka’s world, all of this gets turned upside down. Josef K., the main character, never finds out what he’s supposed to have done wrong. The courts meet in weird places like attics and artist studios. The judges are never seen, the jury box is filled with shadowy figures who whisper and giggle. Lawyers seem helpless. It’s like being stuck in a bad dream where nothing makes sense, but everyone else acts like it’s normal. This craziness isn’t just random. It shows us what we’re afraid might happen if the systems we trust go wrong. What if the law stopped protecting us and started trapping us instead? What if the people in charge stopped caring about fairness? What if we lost control over our own lives because of rules we don’t understand? These fears aren’t just made up. History has shown us that legal systems can be used to hurt people, not help them. Think about secret police in dictatorships, or times when people were punished for their race or beliefs. Kafka wrote his book before some of the worst abuses of the 20th century, but he seemed to sense that these things could happen. Even in countries with good legal systems, people sometimes feel lost or scared when dealing with the law. The language can be confusing. The procedures can be complicated. It’s easy to feel small and powerless, just like Josef K. Does.

Consider this imagined exchange:

Josef K.: “But what am I charged with? I have a right to know!”

Modern Legal Expert: “In any functioning legal system, the accused must be informed of the charges against them. It’s a fundamental principle of due process.”

Josef K.: “The legal system here functions perfectly well without such niceties. In fact, they tell me that my very ignorance of the charges is proof of my guilt.”

Modern Legal Expert: “That’s… that’s completely backwards. It goes against every principle of justice we hold dear.”

Josef K.: “Welcome to my world, counselor.”

This dialogue encapsulates the jarring disconnect between our expectations of justice and the reality Josef K. Faces. It forces us to question: How much of our own legal system is truly comprehensible to the average person? How often do we accept legal procedures simply because they are familiar, rather than because they are just? 

Absence of Due Process: A Kafkaesque Nightmare

Frederick Karl, the biographer of Franz Kafka, captured the essence of the word “Kafkaesque” in a 1991 interview with The New York Times: “What’s Kafkaesque, is when you enter a surreal world in which all your control patterns, all your plans, the whole way in which you have configured your own behavior, begins to fall to pieces, when you find yourself against a force that does not lend itself to the way you perceive the world. You don’t give up, you don’t lie down and die. What you do is struggle against this with all of your equipment, with whatever you have. But of course, you don’t stand a chance. That’s Kafkaesque.”

In simple words, the term “Kafkaesque” represents a nightmarish, bizarre and absurd situation where a person feels stuck and cannot do anything but struggle. Kafkaesque which is inspired by the writings of Franz Kafka typifies an unreal disorienting absurd world where the protagonist feels trapped, left with no other option but to face the overwhelming sense of hopelessness and powerlessness. Kafka illustrates these ideas using bureaucracy or an authoritative figure as a medium of an indifferent machine that serves as a perfect metaphor for the absurd and insurmountable forces against the protagonist.

In The Trial, Josef K., a bank clerk is arrested without being aware of the nature of his crime. His desperate pleas to know his offense are met with silence by a faceless authority. He’s expected to defend himself for something he’s not even aware of. As the case progresses, it becomes clear that K might not be defending against an external charge but against his very self- a futile struggle against a system, representing mysterious and insurmountable forces, that can never be conquered by a man. 

The novel unfolds into a nightmare where the guilt is presumed without proof contrary to the notion- innocent until proven. K’s battle is not against the legal system but against an absurd reality where his humanity is on trial. The reader, like K, is left in the dark, never knowing the crime. In the climax, K is found guilty and executed, stabbed to death by a judgment pronounced in the shadow of uncertainty. Guilty of What? Simply existing. Kafka paints a world where the struggle for meaning collapse into absurdity, and the horror lies not in the crime, but in the inescapable fate of being caught in a system that thrives on ambiguity and despair.

Due Process of Law

Due process is a cornerstone of justice, which ensures that all individuals will be treated fairly and impartially by the state. It provides both procedural and substantive safeguards. The phrase due process of law first appeared in a statutory rendition of Magna Carta in 1354 during the rule of Edward III of England: “No man of what state or, condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law“.  

This principle later found its place in the U.S. Constitution, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment: “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” At its core, due process talks about three key elements:

• Notice of the accusation
• A hearing
• A ruling

By mandating these steps, due process ensures that individual rights are safeguarded from arbitrary use of power by the state. Without it, the door is wide open to unchecked tyranny and oppression. Franz Kafka’s The trial portrays a version of that society- one where those in power exploit their authority, reducing citizens to helpless citizens. The absence of due process renders justice meaningless, and individual rights become unenforceable, swallowed by a system that serves its own interest.

Absence of due process in “The trial” 

Due process of law protects the citizens and ensures a fair trial. The trial shows the sad reality of the judicial system where these protections are clearly absent. Throughout the novel, due process is not just violated: it is completely obliterated. K suffered like many in front of the “just system”.  

All of it started when a man came into K’s room to inform him of his arrest- a process already flawed by its secrecy and lack of clarity. The law mandates that the accused be informed of the charges against them, yet throughout the novel, this basic right is denied to K. After a year, two men came to K’s room and took him to the quarry. K in the end was executed by stabbing in his heart. In his execution, like his arrest without any formal notice, he wasn’t provided any formal verdict or a fair trial or an opportunity to appeal. After the end of the novel, the reader is left with a question- What was his crime? Well, no one knows maybe his very existence is his gravest crime. 

The court decisions were influenced by bribery and favouritisms, making the legal system a theatre of absurdity and injustice. Kafka’s portrayal exposes a system where impartiality is a mere illusion, and the pursuit of justice becomes a tragic yet futile tale. Kafka illuminates the dangers of a world where due process is a hollow promise, and the search for truth is consumed by a bureaucratic abyss. 

Timothy Evans Case

The outside world is not so different than the Kafka’s world. There have been many instances where due process of law is violated. In U.K., there was a man named Timothy Evans who was living an ordinary yet happy life with his family at 10 Rillington place. One day, he was arrested by the police for the murder of his wife and child. Evans initially confesses the killing of his family which he later retracts and alleges it was his neighbor, Christie, who was responsible. Despite his new confession and the plea for a thorough investigation, Evan’s voice went unheard. The police refused to investigate further. He was not given an opportunity to appeal to higher courts. Deprived of the chance to appeal or seek justice through higher courts, Evans was condemned to death. 

Christie was later revealed to be the true murderer. Evans was posthumously given pardon, but the damage was irrevocable. This case highlights the chilling consequences of neglecting due process. Had the police, defence counsel, and judiciary fulfilled their roles with diligence, an innocent man’s life might have been spared, and justice might have prevailed. The Kafkaesque echoes of this case remind us that in both fiction and reality, the erosion of fair trial principles can lead to tragic and irreversible injustices.

Machal Lalung’s case

Imagine you’re a farmer who is as usual working in his field, when without any warning, police arrives and arrest you. Confused and terrified, you struggle to understand what’s happening, but the officials speak a language foreign to you. You’re thrown into judicial custody, awaiting a trial that never comes. A year passes, and one day you’re inexplicably transferred to a psychiatric ward, where you’re simply forgotten. This is Kafkaesque. This is the story of Machal Lalung.

At 23 years old, Lalung was arrested under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code for “causing grievous harm”—a crime typically punishable by no more than 10 years. Yet, he languished in prison for 54 years, not because he was guilty, but because he was denied a trial. When he was finally released in 2005, he was an old man who had lost his life to a system’s apathy. He died two years later.

Lalung’s tragic story is not a rare occurrence. There are hundreds of Lalungs in every corner of the world. There are countless others like him around the world, trapped in the absurdity of broken systems. The principles of justice, equality, and liberty enshrined in constitutions fail when people like Lalung are left to suffer without reason. The world, in moments like these, appears truly Kafkaesque. 

The Psychological Impact: The Trial of the Mind

“It’s only because of their stupidity that they’re able to be so sure of themselves.”

Josef K., the main character in the book, starts off confident and a bit annoyed when he’s arrested. He thinks it’s all a mistake or a joke. But as days turn into weeks and months, we see him change. He becomes paranoid, always looking over his shoulder, wondering if that person on the street knows something about his case. He starts to doubt himself. Maybe he did do something wrong? But what? The not knowing eats away at him. This is what Kafka shows us about the human mind under pressure. When we can’t understand what’s happening to us, when the rules keep changing, or when we feel powerless, it does something to our brains. We might start seeing threats everywhere. We might begin to question everything we thought we knew about ourselves. It’s like being lost in a maze where the walls keep moving. Josef K. becomes obsessed with his case. He neglects his job, his relationships suffer, and his whole life starts to revolve around trying to figure out this mystery that has no solution. It’s like when you have a big worry in real life – maybe a health scare or trouble at work – and you can’t think about anything else. But for Josef K., there’s no end in sight and no clear problem to solve. The stress of his situation isolates Josef K. How do you explain to your friends or family that you’re on trial, but you don’t know why? People start to look at him differently, and he pulls away from others. This loneliness makes everything worse. It’s a reminder of how important support and understanding are when we’re going through tough times. As the story goes on, we see Josef K. swing between hope and despair. One day he thinks he’s making progress, the next he feels like giving up. This emotional rollercoaster is exhausting. It’s like being on a ride you can’t get off, and it wears him down bit by bit.

Consider this imagined internal monologue from K.:

“Am I going mad? Or is it the world that’s gone mad? I wake each morning not knowing if this will be the day of my judgment, my exoneration, or just another in an endless series of confusing encounters. I see judges in the faces of passersby, evidence in discarded scraps of paper. My innocence—which I once held as an unassailable fact—now feels like a fragile thing, eroding under the relentless assault of accusations I can’t even name. Who am I, if not the person I thought I was? What is reality, if not what I’ve always believed it to be?”

What’s scary is that Josef K.’s experience isn’t just fiction. People in real life go through similar things when they face unfair systems or situations they can’t control. Think about someone wrongly accused of a crime, or someone stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare trying to prove they deserve benefits. The confusion, the self-doubt, the stress – it’s all very real. Kafka’s genius is in making us feel what Josef K. Feels. As readers, we get frustrated, confused, and anxious right along with him. It’s a powerful way of showing us that unfair or opaque systems don’t just break rules – they can break people. It makes us think about how we handle uncertainty in our own lives. When things don’t make sense, do we keep fighting like Josef K., or do we give up? Do we let the confusion change who we are, or do we hold onto our sense of self?

 “The Trial” is a warning about what can happen when systems meant to protect us become so complicated or unfair that they hurt us instead. It shows that justice isn’t just about following rules – it’s about treating people in a way that doesn’t destroy them mentally and emotionally. Josef K.’s story reminds us to be compassionate, to fight against unfairness, and to value clarity and justice not just as legal ideals, but as vital protections for our mental health and human dignity.

Modern Relevance: Kafka’s Long Shadow

“The right understanding of any matter and a misunderstanding of the same matter do not wholly exclude each other.”

Nearly a century after its publication, “The Trial” continues to resonate with readers and influence discussions about justice, bureaucracy, and individual rights.  The novel serves as both a warning and a call to action. It warns us of the dangers of complacency, of accepting systems and procedures without questioning their fairness or purpose. It shows us how easily the machinery of justice can become a tool of oppression when divorced from principles of transparency, accountability, and respect for individual rights. At the same time, “The Trial” is a testament to the human spirit’s resilience in the face of absurdity and injustice. Josef K., for all his flaws and missteps, never fully surrenders to the system that seeks to crush him. His struggle, futile though it may be, affirms the importance of individual dignity and the right to question authority. In our modern world, where complex legal systems, vast bureaucracies, and increasingly opaque technologies govern much of our lives, the lessons of “The Trial” are more relevant than ever. We must remain vigilant against the erosion of due process, whether it comes in the form of secret courts, algorithmic black boxes, or bureaucratic mazes. Kafka’s novel reminds us that justice is not just a set of procedures, but a fundamental human right. It challenges us to create and maintain legal systems that are transparent, fair, and respectful of human dignity. It urges us to question, to seek understanding, and to stand up against absurdity and injustice, even when the odds seem insurmountable. In the end, “The Trial” does not offer us easy answers or comforting resolutions. Instead, it leaves us with questions that we must continually grapple with as individuals and as a society. How do we balance security with transparency? How do we ensure that our legal systems serve justice rather than perpetuate oppression? How do we maintain our humanity in the face of impersonal bureaucracies? These are not questions that can be answered once and for all. They require ongoing engagement, critical thinking, and a commitment to the principles of justice and human dignity. By continuing to read, discuss, and wrestle with works like “The Trial,” we keep alive the vital conversation about what justice means and how it should be implemented in our ever-changing world.

ANALYZING THE CASTE SYSTEM IN INDIA FROM THE LENS OF DYSTOPIAN NOVELS

ABSTRACT 

The Caste System in India has been often analyzed for a sociological understanding of its consequences on social institutions. However, as one tries to look at the structure of this social system, there seems to be a dystopian pattern of ascribed hierarchy. In fact, history has shown that such hierarchies exist in numerous places at numerous times. So, does that mean that these hierarchical systems also a common theme in literature? The answer is yes.

Both ‘Brave New World’ written by Huxley, and Orwell’s ‘1984’, would ring a loud bell. This is because they parallel the Indian caste system, a traditional social hierarchy that has historically divided the Hindu community into four classes called varnas. 

Observing the Indian caste system through the dystopian lenses of ‘Brave New World’ and ‘1984’ gives an insightful perspective on the impact of hierarchial social structures and on top of that exemplifies of a literary engagement with life. By comparing these fictional worlds to the real-world caste system, we gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and injustices inherent in such systems and the importance of striving for a more equitable society.

Theme: Fiction’s Reality: Literary Engagements with Life   

ESSAY

There has been a continuous debate of sociological analysis in regard to the Caste system that exists within India and its impact on social institutions. Many of these findings have been useful in practice for legal systems (For example, Article 17: Abolition of Untouchability, and others). Nonetheless, the structure of this social system appears more dystopian as one attempts to take a closer look. A system of graded individuals is not unique to India. Such hierarchies, it turns out, have historically existed in many different places and times. This begs the question – are such hierarchical systems a common theme in literature? Surely, literature must have addressed these dystopian patterns. The answer actually is yes, there are two major novels representing the engagement that the literature shows towards real life. 

The novel ‘Brave New World’ is a well-revered work of fiction, written by Aldous Huxley, set around a world that is dystopian in nature and founded on two major principles, ‘social cohesion’ and ‘pleasure’. In this world, the government does everything it can to end individuality as they think it is counterintuitive to social stability. This futuristic world tries to make itself perfect by restricting individualism and creating a hierarchy on the basis of intelligence. And, of course, this hierarchy has been established at birth.

1984 on the other hand, presents a different yet somewhat perspective into totalitarian social control that uses both propaganda and repression in order to sustain its hierarchies. Government surveillance procedures ensure that all citizens behave in a manner that is loyal and subservient. There is also the notion of ‘doublethink’ and language manipulation to control thought. The ‘Big Brother’ uses the tools of fear and punishment to repress rebellion. This includes tactics like social ostracism, violence, and economic sanctions.

Both these novels ring a loud bell. This is because they somewhat parallel the social system we have been witnessing in India for centuries. The Indian caste system refers to a customary social hierarchy that has served to traditionally segment the Hindu community into four classes called varnas: ‘Brahmins’, ‘Kshatriyas’, ‘Vaishyas’, and ‘Shudras’. Below these varnas stands an Avarna of the community of ‘Dalits’ who have, since times immemorial, remained the victims of acute social discrimination and exclusion.

Though very different, ‘Brave New World’ and ‘1984’ illustrate methods of social control with parallels to the Indian caste system. Such analysis would be very enlightening with respect to the pattern of the Indian caste system through the dystopian lenses of ‘Brave New World’. It would really offer literary engagements with life to contrast these novels with our social reality. Comparing these fictional worlds against the caste system in reality would help us better understand the difficulties and unfairness associated with such systems and why we need to work toward a much more just world. Let us get deeper into this analysis. 

Talcott Parsons, an American sociologist, used a term called ‘Ascription’ in his contemporary sociological works. It can be understood as to be individual quirks and qualities like status, sex or occupation that are ascribed to one at birth. He claimed in his theory of pattern variables that a traditional society has an ascription model, in which the status the individuals possess is based on their birth. It is then that society becomes modern and obtains an achievement model merit based. However, modernization, or turning ‘modern’, has still not got rid of the ascription mindset. We still hear and see incidents of both implicit and explicit casteism. 

Above, four basic varnas are mentioned that comprise the castes of Indian society. The system, with very limited ways to achieve what Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, called caste mobility, determines a person’s status in society, career path, and unfortunately even marriage prospects. Curiously enough, Huxley’s Brave New World is divided into five main classes: epsilon, delta, gamma, beta, and alpha. These classes are physiologically designed and socially conditioned from birth to fit into specific responsibilities within society. For example, the lowest-ranked workers are referred to as Epsilons while what appears to be the intellectual elite are referred to as Alphas. Both classes have been socialized since birth to accept their place in society without question. 

The ways in which these classes start to get socialized from birth can be equated with the 4 processes of socialization as described by Ruth Hartley. These, although, were developed for the purpose of gendered socialization, but can definitely be applied to castes and classes such as: 

1. Manipulation: In Brave New World, manipulation begins at birth itself, where social, physiological and even genetic conditioning of individuals is manipulated just to make sure they fit into their ascribed class. For example, Epsilons are deprived of oxygen during development in order to purposefully limit their potential intellectual capability so that they become suited for physical ‘lowly’ labour. 
2. Conditioning in Huxley: It ‘canalizes’ the socialization of each class toward predetermined roles in society. For instance, Alphas immediately get channelled right into intellectual and leadership roles, while Epsilons are channelled into repetitive, labour-intensive tasks. Such canalization ensures that classes remain within set boundaries. 
3. Verbal Appellation: In the Brave New World, it is observed that the language used reinforces class distinctions with the help of verbal appellations. These appellations are repeatedly used to reinforce identity and expectations of each class, making them internalize that identity. 
4. Activity Exposure: People of Brave New World are exposed at a tender age to activities in tandem with their class. Alphas work on their intellectual tasks, while Epsilons are exposed to repetitive labour work. Such exposure to really class-specific activities right from birth makes sure that people are well-equipped for their later roles in life and accept them without resistance. 

More than that, the above-mentioned concept of ascription and lack of social mobility are probably two of the most evident similarities between the dystopian societies portrayed in Brave New World, 1984, and the system of castes. 

In the orthodox Indian society mostly seen in remote areas, a person’s birth almost predetermines his social and economic roles and a caste is attached to him. This type of social in-group inequality has endured through so many hundreds of years because of this historical lack of opportunities for those born into lower castes to end up rising in society. We should remember, however, that this notion of predestination or as we have categorized in this essay, ‘ascription’, is exaggerated in ‘Brave New World’. People are genetically made to belong to a specific class from birth, and their social functions are predetermined. For instance, in the novel, Lenina Crowne is only a beta conditioned to perform her functions as a hatchery worker without ever bringing into question the system. Everyone is conditioned to believe and feel that his or her place in society is natural and desirable; hence, it is hard, if not unimaginable, to climb up the social ladder. 

Similar means are also observed in 1984 in order to sustain the rigid class system that is backed by a pattern of repression, observation, and propaganda. The top of the social order is the ‘Inner Party’ and at the bottom are the Outer Party and the so-called proles, all enforced by the Party under the command of Big Brother. Social mobility is practically nil, and whoever attempts to raise any question about the status quo is certainly not spared. 

This is illustrated and conveyed through the protagonist Winston Smith, where in his desire to dismantle the oppressive government could only, by all means be snuffed out by the authority of the Party. Control mechanisms, as well as conditioning, is a must in the implementation of social hierarchies to ensure that members assume their prescribed place in it. This is the control that has been employed in the Indian caste system through cultural and religious conditioning. Hindu religious texts, such as the Manusmriti, have been conveniently interpreted in order to legitimize the caste system due to the perceived important role that karma and dharma play in determining an individual’s caste. This religious justification has, in turn, made it hard to attack the system since one might suspect that to question one’s own caste is to dispute God’s holy will. 

Under an effectively designed social hierarchy, psychological conditioning, genetic engineering, and use of narcotics—soma—that keep men quiet and content, social control has been affected in Brave New World. People often undergo ‘hypnopaedic indoctrination’ from the moment they are born, which instils cultural norms and values in their subconscious mind. An often-cited example is one is taught that ‘everyone belongs to everyone else’ so as to foster social cohesion and inhibit individualism. While the caste system depends on religious and cultural conditioning for its perpetuation and the avoidance of rebellion, consumption of soma provides for a more absolute immediate suppression of any notions of dissatisfaction or insurrection. 

The means for social control was a lot more overt and severe in 1984. The party uses methods of propaganda, constant surveillance, and manipulation of the mind and language. One of the prime principles in play that the party uses to keep in power is the ideology of English Socialism—ingsoc. Through its help, the party asserts to the people that it is never wrong and therefore any attempt to question its action becomes a threat to the common good. This ideology works as a very strong tool in justifying all those cruelties that the Party inflicts. It is instilled in their minds that the current social setup is fundamentally right. This can be seen in orthodox Indian in-groups, where speaking against casteism is seen as a threat to the entire Hindu religion.  

Further, a really central concept that it relies on in this manipulation mentioned above is doublethink: the ability of the populace to believe two contradictory concepts simultaneously, in such a way as to excuse the inconsistency or even make it seem rational. An example of such contradictory slogans is ‘Freedom is Slavery’ and ‘War is Peace’—all oxymorons of themselves but believed, due to the level of commitment engendered in adherents to the ideology of the party. Such an ideology manipulation to legitimize inequality is not something unique to Orwell’s fictional world but to real and fictional authoritarians throughout history. 

Equally, in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and the caste system of reality, there is deep conflict between personal potential and social stability at the expense of human rights and personal freedoms. Mostly, they easily descend into sacrificing personal freedom for social order. In particular, the caste system precludes personal aspiration because individuals are consigned to specific roles from the moment of birth, guess in the lowest castes. In such rigid social structures, access to economic and educational opportunities is limited for the lower castes and the circle of social exclusion and poverty is conserved. In so doing, the system not only places inequality in the forefront, but also chokes the development of individual potential in the name of protecting the social structure. 

However, the dystopian futures of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell are mainly connected in one thematic premise: the repression of individuality. This is no less than what is witnessed in the Indian caste system. In the caste system, an individual’s caste identification often supplants the individual’s identity. Deviation from these roles is discouraged and even punished, and personal goals and interests come way above one’s caste obligations. Thus, the practice of endogamy, which bars marriage out of the caste and further underlines the caste borders by restricting personal choice, is a clear case in point of this suppression of individuality. 

In the novel Brave New World, individualism is systematically repressed as it is seen as a threat to social order. The culture promotes no individual expression but rather homogeneity and social cohesion. Notice how Bernard Marx is an Alpha Plus, but an iconoclastic misfit. Bernard is a man whose feelings of inadequacy denied him any sense of belonging within the elite society to which, symbolically, his very important membership card identified him. His feelings of current unsatisfactoriness within the present status quo and the want of being different inside himself are a danger. This eventually gains him exile to an island to which other nonconformists are also exiled. The lack of individualism in Brave New World is a reflection of how one’s caste system could block an individual from personal development and always focus on group identity rather than the individual’s. 

The mandates of individual state suppression were taken to the greatest lengths in 1984. The Party seeks not only to regulate the thoughts of its subjects but also their thoughts. The concept of ‘thoughtcrime’ means that even entertaining the idea of opposition to the Party is punishable by death. Winston is fighting to reclaim his individuality within a society that actively stifles independent thought and also uses many measures to actively discourage it. The final capture and reeducation by the thought Police forcefully remind all the readers of the impotence of opposing a system that seeks to extirpate any traces of personal individuality.

Ideology and propaganda, thus, are most often ironclad ways of rationalizing inequality; whether the caste system or the dystopian worlds presented in Brave New World and 1984. Within the caste system, religious ideologies provide justification for inequities; underlying notions of intrinsic superiority or inferiority of various castes are most powerful. The concept of karma provides justification for the social hierarchy and status quo, where a person’s deeds in a past life determine their caste and, therefore, current inequality. This justification of the unequal has separated society and given greater impetus for legitimizing prejudice against Dalits and other lower-caste members. 

The concept that each class is physiologically suited for its function, and that such a divide is necessary for the stability and happiness of society, becomes the justification for inequality within Brave New World. The propaganda from the government apparently informs everyone that nobody is unhappy in their role, and questioning such a sentiment will disrupt the stability of society. In attempting to justify social stability, one of the World Controllers, Mustapha Mond, states that it is unavoidable to achieve such stability without sacrificing one’s freedom and individuality. This remarkable defense of inequality mirrors the sorts of justifications of the caste system that have allowed it to endure as a social glue. 

An injustice in 1984 is further sustained by an ideology of Ingsoc, which declared the idea that the Party class can never wrong and that any resistance to it will be hazardous for the common good. The people are then indoctrinated to internalize the social order. The ‘doublethink’ within the people’s capacity enables them to rid themselves of the obvious contradictions that are in the Party’s propaganda, like mentioned above ‘Freedom is Slavery’ or ‘War is Peace.’ Fictional and real authoritarian regimes tend to rely on a shifting ideology in order to justify their notions of inequality. 

One of the key issues that come out in the two dystopian worlds created in Brave New World and 1984 and the caste system is the consideration of individual potential versus social stability. Human rights and personal freedom are mostly caliper into submission by the insistent priority of social stability, in place of the potential of people. The potential of an individual is limited by the system to predetermined roles, especially by those of people of lower castes. This is illustrated by the lower castes’ limited room for any chance of economic and educational growth, which ultimately brings a conveyor belt of social exclusion and poverty. 

Human freedom and human potential in Brave New World are compromised for social stability. In our current world, so conditioned around these ideals associated with liberalism, the world by Huxley seems unjust. However, a key part of the novel talks about how people are actually happy with their status! This, unlike 1984, shows how the compromise of individuality may actually work. This, however, asks the readers whether is it really right to compromise for social cohesion in exchange for the knowledge of your true potential? 

It is due to the strict class system and society that everything works in harmony, but, in the process, paid for by biting down on originality and creativity, not to mention human satisfaction. Brought up outside of the World State, John- the Savage symbolizes the potential of the human race that is curtailed within the dystopian order. He meets a sad end due to the inability of balancing his needs for originality with what society expects of him, which in the end underscores the great price paid for repression of human potential in the name of social order. 

In George Orwell’s ‘1984’, human potential is suppressed since the Party lays an unyielding clutch on power. That held significantly suppressed personal development and self-expression through total control over everything, even ideas and opinions. Propaganda, monitoring, and falsification of historical records were just a few tools this totalitarian government used to keep its people in line and incapable of thinking for themselves.  

Smith represents the fight for self-realization in the face of a society that values complete uniformity. His secret love affair with Julia was a futile effort to regain his selfhood and humanness. In the affair, Winston had shared moments of real passion and autonomy with Julia that were so much unlike the dehumanized atmosphere that the Party had cultivated. This rebellion against the ruling status quo is not, however, long-lived. By the incessant monitoring of the Party, in the shape of thought police and the merciless re-education methods applied by the Ministry of Love, Winston’s spirits and chance of becoming special are finally quashed.  

The dystopian society depicted in 1984 serves to remind readers of the perils one exposes oneself to when trading potential with societal control and stability. Aside from highlighting man’s potential value and individual freedom, Orwell’s story also highlights the dehumanizing effect of totalitarianism and the fact that valid social stability should not be given up in the name of individual growth and autonomy. 

Religion and philosophy primarily support the dystopian societies of Brave New World and 1984 and the caste system. The segregation of castes has always been reinforced by Hindu religious texts and customs, and understandably, the system has thus been difficult to abolish. The social order has its roots in karma and dharma, and the lower castes are told that their status in society is somehow a direct result of their actions in previous lives. This fear of losing this life to death and suffering that is supposedly prevented by the Hindu laws and regulations is scary combination. This theological reason has made a difficult time for lower castes to question their plight in society because it would be viewed as acting against the divine order. 

Instead of religion and miracles, the state in Brave New World worships scientific and technological breakthroughs. One such example is the worship of Ford, the businessman who invented mass production. This new ideology keeps the public in line and the current social order intact, much like the religious ideology that holds the caste system in place. A control mechanism of the caste system is reproduced here in the use of soma, a stimulant keeping people quiet and satisfied. 

The Party promotes Ingsoc as the only form of thinking that will be allowed in 1984, using ideology as a means of control. Because the Party controls language, information, and history, it is ensured that the general public will accept the social order as inherently correct. The Party has the ability to manipulate language to control. Cognition will not be able to suspect any potential rebellion as it invokes ideas such as, ‘Newspeak,’ ‘doublethink’. The application of ideology to cling to power seems like a common plot between the fictional and real nature of societies. 

In conclusion, a weigh-up analysis between the dystopian worlds of Brave New World and 1984 and the Indian caste system can be very useful in unraveling some important ideas about mechanisms of social control, repression of individuality, and rationalization of inequality. As has already been referred to in both books, both the caste system and these dystopian civilizations accord a higher value to social stability than human potential—very often at the cost of personal autonomy and personal growth.  

Seen in both these dystopian societies, but also in the caste system, is the holding on to power through religion and ideology, which brings out the dangers of allowing people’s lives to be governed by strict hierarchical institutions. These dystopian novels broadened our understanding of the challenges and injustices that come with these systems and the importance of working toward a more just society.  

Therefore, we learn from these incredible pieces of literature that the very foundations of our real-life societies need to be continually questioned in the quest for a society that would celebrate individuality and freedom while placing human potential in tandem with social stability. The novels serve as a reminder of how the cycle of the caste system survives and what that means for us as humans.

ABSTRACT

The first half of this essay deals with Literature as a tool for social change and Literature as a time capsule. It also deals with how Literature makes certain historical horrors easier to read about, creating a sense of empathy among the readers and making them aware of the issue at hand. We then see the intersection at which Law and Literature meet through the analysis of three Indian cases and how the judges deciding the cases connected the case to a piece of Literature they could relate it most to. 

The second half of this essay deals with how Literature is at the cornerstone of every social movement globally, making it the first of the lot to come under fire, through the mode of censorship. We then analyze the reasons why censorship takes place, how it is executed and then we take a magnified view into how Literature has been censored historically in three separate jurisdictions, i.e., the United Kingdom, the United States and finally, India. We then conclude on a futuristic note, understanding how Literature censorship can be a more streamlined and unbiased process, considering the Indian Legal System. 

INTRODUCTION

As a dynamic art form, literature has blossomed along with civilisation; from scribbling on stone tablets to digital ones, man’s dependence on writing has never ceased. The journey from rudimentary agricultural settlements to the rise and fall of majestic empires and the eventual creation of modern metropolitans can be traced transparently through the literary lens. Millennia have flown by in this endeavour, each hosting either a singular dominant value system or a wide variety of ideologies that moulded and continue to shape the lives of inhabitants. While the progress that society has made is remarkable beyond any shadow of a doubt, what must be appreciated is the pivotal, nay, crucial role played by literature in not only documenting – but also pioneering these epochal shifts. The behemoth body of literature has served as an instrument for the transition of ideas from one era to the next.

This movement can be understood by accounting for the fact that words, the building blocks of literature, are not apolitical. They cannot be interpreted in a static sense and must be considered along with the context in which they are used. This signifies that they reflect the culture of the times in which they were conceived, a concept that was spread through the Linguistic Turn, where the majoritarian principles and prevailing propaganda of the age can be identified with ease. Literature thus becomes not a simple product of societal imagination, but an intertwined phenomenon bringing to the forefront the morality governing the behaviour of people. And the enrapturing beauty of this medium of expression is that these ideologies may be represented in myriad ways. They may be superficially seen in the plot of a novel or play as seen in most Shakespearean works (for example, the evidently patriarchal and questionably misogynistic storyline of ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ or the Christian theme of mercy that forms the iconic climax of the equally celebrated ‘The Merchant of Venice’ ). These values may also be depicted in the form of an analogy, like the delightful satire that is George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm.’ This popular novella is Orwell’s brazen and scathing commentary on the Soviet Union; where the literary tool of allegory highlights the scenario of the time. A similar yet altogether distinct experience of context would be ‘Maus’ by Art Spiegelman. A graphic novel and retelling of first-hand accounts of the horror that was the Holocaust, this visual form of literature is often underappreciated, but immensely impactful, leaving a lasting impression on the reader. This kind of representation makes it more inviting to the masses, and a distinctive portrayal of the tragedy is accessible. Thus, the sheer innovation of the discipline of literature cannot be ignored in the slightest either.

LITERARY LAW: A LOOK AT THE INTERDISCIPLINARY LINK

A rather undermined yet direct link between literature and the legal field can be seen when the latter relies on the former in the pursuit of justice. It has been observed in recent cases, the Indian judiciary has opted to include certain literary references in their judgements. From invoking Shakespearean villains as specimens of the extent of human cruelty to the use of renowned couplets as introductions to landmark human rights judgements, the presence of literature as a robust foundation on which law can be built is undeniable. This sentiment is reflected in the words of Mr. Jerry Pinto, where he labels law itself as an exercise in literature. The very fact that it involves constant interpretation and reiteration according to the context and situation the lawmakers are faced with makes law a realistic and essential form of literature.

This essay shall consider three landmark cases to highlight the interdependency between the disciplines of law and literature: Jolly George Verghese v Bank of Cochin, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India and Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal. Each judgement is an earnest attempt to bring about a social revolution through the assertion of rights in various instances to vulnerable sections of the community. Each is a representation of how the legal sphere undertakes such societal revolution, and when supplemented by the behemoth body of literature, succeeds in its aspirations to catalyse progress in society.

Consider first the Jolly Verghese case. The simplified facts are as follows: The appellants were debtors who were unable to repay their creditors on time. This resulted in an arrest warrant being issued against them, and the subsequent restriction on their personal freedom until said loan was repaid. The question before the court was whether this would constitute a violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 21. While the court answered this in the affirmative, its reference to the ‘Bard upon Avon’ was a particularly intriguing one. A comparison of the respondents has been made to the infamous character of Shylock from the celebrated ‘The Merchant of Venice’ The court seemed to adopt a stance where they likened the bank’s merciless actions to the heartless cruelty of Shylock. This invocation is used to emphasise the judicial shift in the approach to human dignity –  the ushering in of an era where brutish acts like denying freedom to another shall not be tolerated; a change from an age where vicious demands like demand for a pound of flesh could be made (figuratively), to a period where the regard for individual liberty is paramount. It signifies the relevance of dated literature to today’s date.

Secondly, a look at the order in Budhadev Karmaskar provides a varnished picture of how seamlessly literature and law blend into each other’s rich colours. Dotted with references from various reputed works, the order relates to the dignity of sex workers under Article 21. Drawing from celebrated novels like the intricate Crime and Punishment and the poignant Devdas, the judges have elaborated on the recognition and subsequent protection of the humanitarian rights of prostitutes; and how they must not be scorned upon for their occupation. Though noble, this ideology goes against what is described as societal morality. Well-known examples of prostitutes, such as ‘Chandramukhi’ in Devdas and ‘Sonya Marmelodov’ from Dostoevsky’s oeuvre have been used by the judges to underline how their depiction in literature is often one of respect, and how a similarly humane treatment should be meted out to them even in reality. The mention of these characters is to highlight the need for guaranteeing basic dignity to all under the Constitution, irrespective of their profession; an attempt at providing momentum to the wheel of social change through its judgement. This serves as another instance of the two disciplines working in tandem to encourage progress.

The case of Aruna Shanbaug is a well-known, harrowing incident of a barbaric crime that captured the masses in its fight for human rights. This critical judgement was focused on passive euthanasia and was instrumental in cementing the courses of action to be followed for the same. A notable fact of the case is that the judgement begins with a quote by Mirza Ghalib, a lovely couplet signifying agonising wait for death, and its elusiveness. The poetry was an apt choice for it; it set the tone for a judgement dealing with the ‘Right to Life’ under Article 21. The succinct yet powerful couplet represents the pressing need for recognition of issues of a human nature. Judges often employ such Urdu ‘shayri’ to convey raw emotion, demonstrate compassion and connect to the heart of the matter raised in the proceedings in the purest sense. . Ghalib’s mastery in the Aruna Shanbaug case is particularly relevant and heart-wrenching; it talks about a certain feeling of despondency that emerges from human condition when confronted with tragedy and the sense of isolation and alienation it carries with it. This is pertinent to the judgement itself and communicates the emotion behind it beautifully.

Multiple others exist, all defining, in a unique manner, the bond between Literature and Law. The connection has, for aeons, propelled society towards development, and been the metaphorical wind beneath the wings of societal evolution. Having functioned as an instrument of change, it continues to aid in the metamorphosis of civilisation into a more tolerant and inclusive society, welcoming all. From eloquent and poignant poetry to passionate stories elucidating affection and feelings of fraternity, it has spurred moral revolutions. Despite its significance, Literature has unfortunately been the subject of unscrupulous censorship. Banning books, forbidding poems and prohibiting prose is an issue that requires serious and extensive discussion, especially in a society riddled with moral concerns. The next part of this essay deals in depth with precisely this aspect of Literature; an analysis of its censorship in the past, present and potential future.

CENSORSHIP AND LITERATURE

Literature is arguably the most distinct discipline of all. Rooted in all kinds of different subjects, it serves as an intersection of all these different schools and disciplines. Literature’s ability to create imaginative dimensions inspired by a plethora of different disciplines owes it the title of the most powerful tool to inspire generations. Historically, Literature and literary scholars have been at the forefront of multiple protests and movements. Texts such as The Color Purple by Alice Walker, Funny Boy by Shyam Selvadurai, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Little Women by Lousia May Alcott and others addressing topics of women’s rights, civil rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, etc., have made significant impact in the protest for change. Words, sentences, and pages are so beautifully bound together that they ignite a sense of empathy and a fire for action in those who come across it. 

Literature censorship has been a practice since time immemorial, as far back as 1536, when William Tyndale’s translated copies of the New Testament were destroyed, him executed. Historically, censorship has not only resulted in the fatality of thought but also the fatality of man, with 460 scholars being scorched to death by the Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang, which later inspired Mao Zedong to destine 46000 scholars to the same fate. The history of censorship is riddled with ruthlessness and brutality, in an attempt to extinguish the fire of curiosity, to numb the mind and to limit freedom of thought. Censorship is not always unilaterally imposed by the state but is also exercised by individuals, once internalized by communities, making it a societal issue as well. Censorship has the potential to give rise to a sheep that follow the herd rather than formulating their own thoughts and opinions. Literature censorship looks different as we move from one jurisdiction to another. In China, books which do not align with values and morals of the Chinese socialist government indicate deviancy and are taken of the shelves before it can reach more of its population. Same goes for the Soviet Union where the government kept tabs on the books circulated within the population. 

CENSORSHIP IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Let us start by laying down the basic foundations upon which the UK laws of freedom of speech and censorship have been built. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, which applies to the UK, Scotland and Wales, deals with protection of freedom of speech and opinion, which includes thoughts put down on articles, pamphlets, books, television, art, and on social media sites, and also includes protection of rights which allow us to look for and make note of information from other people, allowing one to formulate their own opinions. 

The UK has been the torchbearer of censorship in many aspects, starting with the ban on translated copies of the Bible, to making sure that only people of the Church may translate the Bible and share its meaning with the general public, limiting their access to the original source and exercising their power as the most supreme organization in the kingdom, allowing the Bible to conform to their translated version of it. Most censorship in the UK revolves around Literature detailing sexual obscenity. Sex not only involves mentions of activities such as masturbation, sex, and other similar acts considered “vulgar”, they also include topics surrounding sexual identity, expression, and Literature addressing the LGBTQIA+ community. This poses a threat to the rights conferred upon citizens of the UK, by Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, which includes ‘Protection of Freedom of Thought, Belief and Religion’. Having said that, it is nothing compared to the protests undertaken in the United States by conservative parents who rally against school boards to remove certain texts from the courses of their children, something we will unpack in the next segment. 

CENSORSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES

For a country that celebrates their right of freedom of speech and expression, as enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Literature censorship in the US has been rampant and one of the most debated topics in contemporary times. The land of dreams offers hordes of parents, patiently waiting and rallying against content they find inappropriate. Children’s books are often the first to be targeted, owing to children’s quality of impressionability, fearing such books will influence children to pursue a strain of thought different for the majoritarian or dominant view. Essentially, Literature is restricted by someone who simply does not like the view expressed in the type of Literature they wish to ban. This has significant impact on young readers, who are supposed to consume diverse forms of Literature made keeping in mind diverse lived experiences, equipping children with multiple lenses and schools of thought to look at the world from, making them more empathetic to the protest and struggles of others. The spirit of community amongst the censors does not stop them from claiming that the novel The Fixer by Jewish Author Bernard Malamud to be “Anti-Jewish and Anti-Christian” or even trying to ban texts depicting sexual abuse against children, making Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye one of the most targeted books of them all. From teachers losing their jobs for teaching JD Salinger’s the Catcher in the Rye to young adults being robbed of their experience of feeling seen and recognized through texts such as Perks of being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky and Looking for Alaska by John Green, the US is the perfect specimen for a case study surrounding the impact of book bans and Literature censorship on actors involved in the writing and reading of said books, and the impact it has on the upcoming generation, who lose out on the chance of reading such books and developing a sense of empathy for those who may identify with it. Governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has been an influential figure in the book ban protests, having signed a law that restricts materials which contain “sexual conduct” from the shelves of the classrooms of Florida, leading to a school district being sued for taking down encyclopedias and dictionaries with descriptions of sexual conduct. 

CENSORSHIP IN INDIA

Freedom of Speech and Expression is protected under Article 19 of Part III of the Indian Constitution, however, there is has been a history of contradictory approaches to the same in India. With India’s mosaic-like diversity, coupled with its communal, collectivist societies, books that come under fire in India are often met with raging protests by not just individuals but entire communities of people, making it hard to make a book appealing to the entirety of the Indian population. Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verse, a book dealing with loss of identity and belongingness, ironically caused such an uprising amongst the masses he wrote for. Rushdie worldwide became sensational overnight, predominantly amongst people who had not even read the book. Riots and 14 casualties in the city of Bombay led to the Rajiv Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India to ban the book for the sake of “communal harmony”. Internationally, a fatwa was issued by the Ayatollah of Iran, demanding Rushdie’s assassination. 

On a similar, yet less violent note, Aubrey Menen’s Rama Retold, a more secular take on the original Ramayana, resulted in its banned, fueled by Jawaharlal Nehru’s uncertainty and fear of criticism. In an attempt to prevent riots, a fear that Nehru developed when a group of Brahmin priests burned the book as a sign of protest, the book was banned before it could cause an upheaval. 

In contemporary times, the movie Maharaj by Siddarth P. Malhotra, based on a an 1862 case involving libel, led to a petition being filed worshippers of Lord Krishna and Vallabhacharya in the Gujarat High Court, contending insult to the Hindu religion, blasphemy, and criticism of the God and hymns, leading the Justice  Sangeeta Vishen to issue a temporary stay order on the movie, after the court came to a final conclusion with regards to the fate of the film, lifting the stay order. Mini Chandran aptly titles such mob censorship as “Democratization of Censorship”, which, in our view, is an eerily dystopian fate on this conquest that Literature undertakes at the start every significant social change movement. With minority views voted out, it strips texts and media of their individuality and curates a collection of books, all subscribing to the majoritarian ideals, leading to an imbalance in the marketplace of thoughts, ideas and opinions. A similarity noted in all three countries is that of mob censorship, making censorship not just a unilateral imposition by the State but also something fueled by the masses. 

CONCLUSION: THE WAY AHEAD?

It is essential that we take cognizance of the matter at hand: our thoughts are being taken away from us, our opinions are being taken away from us, our voices are being taken away from us. Without the vessels of wisdom that allow us to look at the world in a different light from one book to another, from a poem to another, from a movie to another, we are bound to a world where we walk a path not carved by us but a path we are forced to tread, and without even realizing it. Today, people in Kolkata and all over the world protest the rape and murder of a 31-year-old doctor within the confines of her own workspace and the way we express our rage is not just through protests and riots but also through words. Words flood the internet. Shame. Fear. Disgust. Anger. Sadness. All expressed in poems, snippets, and posts sprinkled across the internet like rain, rallying for people to join the movement and make a difference. This is the power of words. If we started banning Literature, nothing but photos will remain in the end. Every text banned, burned and turned to ashes. We must rise from these ashes rather than adding fuel to the fire and create more of it. 

To create an inclusive society is to create a tolerant society and Literature is the way ahead. We must power through and fight for our thirst for knowledge, or let our brains rot and turn to cheese. One way we can implement this is to set up a tribunal, solely for the purpose of addressing petitions and PILs filed concerning Literature, which would include books, poems, any form of publication, and media. This would be in collaboration with the Central Board of Film Certification, a few prolific writers on board, people from the media community as well as judges specializing in media law. Legal provisions for protecting Literature is highly essential as it is the cornerstone of our development at any point in time, be it childhood, adulthood or old age. This is what makes Literature an essential force for social progress. 

THE IMAGINATIONS OF SCIENCE FICTION AS MOULDING LEGAL THOUGHT: A CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

Abstract

The present paper is an attempt to explore and do some justice to the impact of science fiction upon the development of law and its jurisprudence. It commences with the historical origins of science fiction where disagreement is seen as to its founding fathers and categorization, observing that the inherent structure of the genre enables insights into law and society. The next segment examines the engagement of the judiciary with science fiction, wherein the notion of judicial rulings being influenced by science fiction is discussed. The last segment concerns itself with the critical potential of science fiction in informing the law’s engagement with popular cultural narratives. This is illustrated through an analysis of a film dealing with the intermixing of species, and its consequent influence on actual legislation in the U.K. It is hoped that the paper would shed light upon the often profound yet underappreciated relationship between literature and law, and cause a greater regard for the former, especially in the legal fraternity.

Keywords: science fiction, law, popular culture narratives. 

1. VISITING THE GENESIS AND CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SCIENCE FICTION 

The genre of science fiction has significantly shaped the creative faculties of modern society, with a majority of individuals familiarizing themselves with its archetypes and motifs from a young age. This section aims to delineate a functional definition of science fiction while concurrently alluding to its historical context.

Restrictive interpretations of science fiction frequently assert that the genre did not exist prior to 1920s and that it originated within the pages of Amazing Stories, the first science-fiction magazine ever published. From this perspective, the inception of science fiction coincided with its formal definition. Nevertheless, Gernsback’s characterization of science fiction evidently references a pre-existing corpus of authors whose writings were not classified as science fiction during their time. This has prompted some scholars to argue that science fiction encompasses works produced by authors like Edgar Allan Poe and Jules Verne, or even that its origins can be traced back to these literary figures.

However, it is the very diversity and adaptability of science fiction, evident in its ability to integrate concepts from numerous disciplines, that has sustained the genre for more than a century. There definitively exists no singular, authoritative urtext; instead, there exists a multitude of origins. This abundance of influences constitutes a significant factor contributing to the contentious nature of the term “science fiction.”

Nevertheless, scholars posit that we ought to regard science fiction as a comprehensive term, analogous to the concept of “sport.” It is infeasible to delineate “sport” merely by alluding to the regulations of football or tennis, for instance. This does not imply, of course, that the concept of sport is nonexistent. One might observe parallels in this regard with the field of law; it would be challenging, for example, to characterize “law” by solely referencing contract law. Such a characterization would inadequately reflect the numerous dimensions of law.

The notion of detachment is pivotal for any attempt at comprehension of science fiction. The interaction between the familiar and the unfamiliar penetrates the essence of the genre. The necessity for the genre to construct an imaginative framework distinct from the author’s milieu remains a topic of contention. While numerous works are situated in disparate temporal and spatial contexts (Star Trek, Star Wars, very notably) many others unfold in places resembling the author’s surroundings, albeit with the incorporation of novel contexts or scenarios that introduce a sense of otherness. This “otherness” introduces several legal and ethical quandaries that the characters must navigate against, and in doing so, they reveal insights into our society and lawmaking, howsoever startling they may be (1984, The Handmaid’s Tale, Animal Farm are classics of this field).

1. JUDICIAL PARTAKING IN SCIENCE FICTION

Science fiction has explored legal frameworks and jurisprudential issues across numerous narratives; still, I contend that this interaction is bidirectional. Science fiction has significantly influenced perceptions within legal systems, the judiciary, legislative bodies, and public opinion. The necessity for legal discourse to interact with the mechanisms through which texts convey their meanings has been highlighted as vital, and in this segment, I will elucidate various domains in which legal discourse has deliberately engaged with science fiction and its motifs. As a result of this interaction, legal terminology, in certain contexts, embodies elements of science fiction.

The judiciary has engaged with the genre of science fiction across various contexts. For instance,  laws address science fiction through patents and copyrights, which formally acknowledge it as a genre within both literature and cinema. Second, science fiction is frequently depicted in case law as an interest of individuals with psychological disorders, categorized as a hobby of, among others: offenders, child exploiters, and those with mental health issues.

This perception persists despite the fact that science fiction represents at least 10% of the total books sold globally and many of the top fifty highest-grossing films of all time are oriented toward science fiction.T hus, to isolate science fiction as a deviant interest appears somewhat unjust, if not empirically dubious.

Another application of the term “science fiction” within the realm of law serves as a descriptive reference when discussing scenarios for which legal entities were insufficiently prepared, exemplified by the examination of advertising contracts that failed to anticipate the expansion of Internet advertising. In the case of Hiram Walker & Sons Inc. v. Drambuie Liqueur Co. (1998), the involved parties sought resolution in court over a disagreement concerning Internet advertising. Lord Penrose, who presided over the case, asserted that at the time of the contract’s inception, Internet advertising was considered “science fiction.” In this context, science fiction was implicitly understood as a conceptual framework that can, to a certain degree, accurately forecast future legal and societal challenges.

Yet another interpretation of science fiction, arguably the most intriguing, relates to judicial conjecture. The judiciary occasionally contemplates how its rulings might have been influenced had the specifics of a case been significantly modified by concepts derived from the science fiction genre. Judges have indulged in such conjecture concerning the creation and production of artificial life, deliberating on whether nonhuman machines are capable of inflicting torture, and examining the increasingly indistinct boundary separating life from death.

By recognizing that scenarios once relegated deep within science fiction, such as the proliferation of the Internet, the engineering of synthetic life forms, and advancements in pioneering medical methodologies, can exert an influence on legal principles, the judiciary has exhibited a propensity to utilize the lexicon of science fiction in articulating its judgments. This inclination may suggest that science fiction possesses the capacity to encapsulate societal values and trends in a manner that legal discourse may not effectively achieve.

Consequently, the imagery inherent in the narratives of science fiction permeates the common vernacular, ultimately finding its way into the legal terminology. By examining the interactions between culture and technology, science fiction does carry the potential to foresee and address social and technological transformations prior to their acknowledgment by the judiciary.

An academician once noted that although judicial authorities and lawmakers are restricted by established precedents as well as financial and political motivations, literature possesses the liberty to embrace innovation, disrupt traditional norms, and express new conceptualizations that may subsequently influence legal structures and legislation.

This is because, through the envisaging of potential interactions and catastrophic outcomes, science fiction facilitates a cultural reflection, assessment, and critique of occurrences prior to their manifestation. As a literary genre, one might even plausibly argue that science fiction holds an innate superior capability to address such matters compared to other cinematic or literary forms, as it is inherently focused on themes related to the future and technological advancements. Since it spotlights conceivable futures, science fiction empowers legal systems to explore varied approaches for navigating emerging events and circumstances.

III. UNEARTHING AN INFLUENCE 

In this final segment, I will support my argument as the symbiosis between law and science fiction, with one of my most cherished movies of all times: Species;  a movie I watched, enjoyed and loved as a child, as a teenager, and continue to do so today, but it is only fairly recently that I have come across the ramifications of its attitudinal tilt regarding a murky terrain, upon actual legislation.

1. “Species”: A Textual Analysis 

In the narrative, a transmission originating from Earth, which carries the full mapping of the human genome, is returned back from the “extraterrestrials”, seemingly dispatched by a well-intentioned alien civilization along with directives for the successful amalgamation of human and alien genetic material. Researchers subsequently employ this intelligence to fabricate a hybrid embryo. Nevertheless, the embryo undergoes rapid gestation, ultimately manifesting as an adult female entity, designated as “Sil.” Following an endeavor to eliminate her, Sil manages to escape from the scientific research facility in which she is confined and initiates a quest for reproduction.

This discourse presents several critical concerns. Primarily, the hybrid resembles a (strikingly beautiful) human; her aspiration for conception could potentially yield hybrid offspring and lead to species contamination. Consequently, the essence of humanity is jeopardized by the sexual agency of the (monstrous feminine) hybrid. Sil embodies two classifications of the monstrous feminine delineated by Creed: the “woman begotten with an abomination” and the “woman as an alluring yet deadly assassin.”

Additionally, the hybrid’s semblance to humanity engenders a diminishment of the uniqueness within the human category, and by depicting hybrid progeny as having widespread repercussions, the prospect of disease transmission is also invoked.

The film is fundamentally predicated upon the unearthing of suppressed or latent female sexuality. A palpable apprehension regarding the reproductive female anatomy appears to surface; Sil’s aesthetically appealing exterior is juxtaposed with her grotesque reproductive organ. As Creed observes, horror cinema frequently invokes the “timeless association between femininity, reproduction, and the monstrous.” 

In Sil’s context, gender plays a pivotal role in her monstrosity. Her aspiration to conceive and reproduce represents a peril to societal norms. Her libido, her sexual identity, poses a threat of triggering a widespread crisis. The trepidation surrounding the hybrid offspring intertwines with anxieties about female sexuality, single motherhood, and societal disintegration. The amalgamation of human and animal (or in this scenario, extraterrestrial) unveils the ostensibly primal essence of female sexuality. The hybrid embodies both the seductress and the executioner (I say this because she eliminates the males subsequent to mating, or attempting to mate, with them).

In one way, the intertwining of anxieties surrounding such an organism and apprehensions regarding female sexuality can be attributed to the cinematic portrayal, as the provocative essence of the film is evidently designed to enhance its commercial success. Conversely, this “weaving” may also reflect a broader societal bias. 

Both the hybrid and the female physique have been depicted as possessing “a propensity to blur the delineated boundaries between self and other, to taint and envelop.” Embedded within this ambiguity lies the potential for peril and illegality, resulting in the stigmatization of both entities. 

The perceived threat posed by them may be juxtaposed against the legal ideal of the normative male body, which is characterized by its defined, impenetrable, and distinct nature. Through this feminist perspective, one may interpret the “moral objection” as being intricately linked to ethical debates concerning gender and sexuality. Consequently, it becomes evident that Species manifests certain public anxieties regarding human-animal combinations.

Certain potential ramifications of neglecting to restrict cell hybridization become particularly evident in the context of the movie, wherein such an embryo is carried to birth. At this juncture, the conceptual ambiguity distinguishing human from animal is most acutely perceived. The entity possesses human-like characteristics yet is fundamentally different. The rights and personhood associated with the event of “birth” raise immediate concerns. 

From a legal standpoint, a principal rationale for prohibiting such events is to avert the necessity for the law to adjudicate the status of such organisms once they reach full gestation, given that embryos themselves do not possess legal personhood. Science fiction is capable of circumventing these legal constraints, thereby compelling us to reflect upon the ethical and legal implications surrounding these entities in a world where their existence is firmly real. I will now try and draw parallels as to the influence of the film upon a law dealing precisely with such considerations, passed in the United Kingdom.

1. Legislative Implications 

In 2008, amendments were instituted regarding the regulation of hybrid fertilized embryos within the United Kingdom. According to the “Human Fertilization and Embryology” (shortened to HFE) Act of 2008, the integration of human and animal cells for non-reproductive research purposes was permitted. This was subject to the stipulation that no admixed embryo is permitted to develop beyond fourteen days. Consistent with the earlier Act of 1990, it remains impermissible to implant such an embryo, or any gametes other than those derived from humans, into a female, or any animal species. 

In the movie, it was legally permitted the formation of hybrid embryos, yet it also imposed a temporal restriction beyond which the entity must be terminated. In the plot, this deadline extended significantly beyond the fourteen-day mark, thereby facilitating the emergence of the peril subsequently posed by Sil. 

Conversely, the earlier discontinuation date endorsed by the 2008 Act mitigates this dual menace to both the definition of “human” and the existential continuity of humanity as presently understood. Nevertheless, these temporal boundaries and prohibitions may not endure indefinitely. Speculative fiction, societal attitudes, and legislative frameworks are all plausibly anticipated to present divergent interpretations of cross-breeding in the future.

An examination of the distinctions between the 1990 and 2008 Act, reveals a notable transition in focus from the outright prohibition of the entity to a restriction on reproduction and procreation. This shift in prominence echoes the prevailing fears inherent in the discourse surrounding the film.

Despite Sil’s remarkable physical prowess and her nature as a remorseless assassin, she did not constitute, as an individual, a direct menace to society; rather, the threat she embodied stemmed from the alleged epidemic repercussions of her reproductive capabilities. In this context, the entity itself was not initially subject to prohibition; instead, reproduction, as articulated in the 2008 Act, emerged as the act deemed impermissible.

We cannot surely say that the United Kingdom government, in revising the Act, did explicitly adhere to the counsel of science fiction, it certainly did pay heed to public skepticism as encapsulated in and disseminated by narratives such as seen in the film.

In conclusion, it is important to remember that the journeys we take in fiction may not be “real” in the physical sense of the term, they always carry the potential. Law has and continues to shape and be shaped by literature, especially science fiction in the modern era; it is foolish to belittle the worth of this tryst for it has, does and will permeates all of society, everywhere. All one needs to do is look.