Indian Culture - What they don't want you to know

Let me begin by relating an incident from an ancient Indian text, the 'Natya Shastra' which deals with the performing arts (theatre, music and dance, but also extends to other forms of arts like painting). The Natya Shastra is believed to have been written between 200 BC and 200 AD.

In the Natya Shastra, the origin of plays is explained. The gods wanted an 'object of diversion' for the common people, which would have both visuals and audios, and both educate and entertain. They went to Brahma and asked him to devise this object of diversion, who thought up the concept of a 'play'.
The subject of the first play was to depict the defeat of the asuras (demons) by the devas (gods) led by Indra. The devas and many others were among the audience. While the actors were performing the play, the asuras, who were there (apparently uninvited), were 'offended' by the way they (the asuras) were being depicted in the play.
"We shall not tolerate this dramatic performance", they said. Upset, they started creating havoc and paralysed the speech, movement and the memory of the actors. When Indra realizes that the asuras were meddling with the actors' performance, he picks up a flagpole, kills some of the asuras and chases out the rest.
The other gods were afraid that the remaining asuras would return and once again use violence upon the actors. However, Indra assures them and the actors that the flagpole he had used to chase away the asuras would protect all the actors.
However, some vighnas (evil spirits) that had been instigated by the asuras return to terrorise the actors. Indra approaches Brahma and asks him to find a solution to this.
Brahma asks Visvakarman (the architect of the gods) to build a fantastic playhouse and then places different gods at different parts of the playhouse to protect it from any vighanas or enemies.
Brahma then reaches out to the asuras and asks them why they were disrupting the play. They complain that the devas were coaxing the actors to depict them in an unfavourable light. To this, Brahma replies that he had created the Natya Shastra to be used by everyone and it would take into account acts and ideas of everyone, not just the devas.

---

Let us remove the frills and the fairies from this story. In effect, what this text says is that the theatre (or any medium of expression for that matter) is a sacred space. The views and opinions of anyone and everyone could be discussed here and nobody should object to it or cry 'I'm offended'. It hails arts as a source of discussion and expression, where nothing is 'good' or 'bad' and nothing should be banned.

This is part of our Indian culture (to those of you who say its Hindu culture, Hindu culture is part of Indian culture). It is a tradition that has been around for a couple of millennia.

In present day India, many films, books, music and artistic performances are being banned or censored by using the garb being 'against Indian culture' or being 'offensive' to some people.

As we have seen from the above story, Indian culture expressly says that banning something or censoring the views of an artist should not be practiced, even if some people are offended by it or even if most people do not agree with it. It holds art as sacred and even afforded it the protection of the gods.

So who is acting opposite to Indian culture? The artists or those who pressurise and carry out the censorship?