‘I would have opted out if I had known’

Actor Amol Palekar speaks out about how he had not been briefed about what he could not say; denies that his speech was out of line

A day after the incident at National Gallery for Modern Art (NGMA), Mumbai, Amol Palekar has said that he would have opted out of the programme if he had been briefed in advance about the speech restrictions. While he stated that such incidents have increased after 2014, he also mentioned that this is not an issue about a particular party but it’s a fight against censorship and hence is antiestablishment.

Palekar was interrupted during his speech at the retrospective of veteran modernist artist Prabhakar Barwe when he started criticising the decision to reduce the area at NGMA holding external shows. While top artists and art patrons including former NGMA chairman Suhas Bahulkar, artist Brinda Miller and JJ School of Art professor Manisha Patil had written to the gallery expressing their dismay at the decision, it was Palekar who chose to speak against the decision publicly during the event. He was stopped by the organisers and was repeatedly asked to stick to the topic — Barwe’s art. Palekar’s wife Sandhya Gokhale filmed the entire incident and the clip has now gone viral on social media with scores of people expressing concern about freedom of speech and expression.

Explaining the way the events unfolded on the day, Palekar said, “The retrospective of Prabhakar Barwe opened at NGMA on Friday. I was invited there as a speaker. I was interrupted — requested as per the version of the organisers — and I could not complete my speech. When Suhas Bahulkar requested me to stop I asked him if he was trying to stop and censor my speech. Then Jesal tried to stop me and since it was she who invited me to the event, I respected her and stopped. While I concluded the speech I had to skip some portion about the way the exhibitions which were scheduled in the gallery were cancelled. The propriety of what I said is being questioned now. The simple answer is that when you invite me as a speaker you should have briefed me about what is to be said and what not. No such brief was given. I was speaking at NGMA and the changes in the organisation’s policy. Then how does this become irrelevant? If they would have briefed me in advance I would have opted out of the event.”

Elaborating on his reasons for opposition to the decision of restricting the gallery space, he added, “The advisory committee had confirmed three events in 2019 and dates were finalised too. But after the new committee was formed, only Barwe’s retrospective was allowed. This is respected space for all of us and hence we wanted to know why this decision was taken? Why was it not being announced and why am I being stopped from speaking about it on the premises? Why keep the lid close? Open it and discuss about the decision. If there is a policy then it should have been discussed. We might have accepted the decision.”

He also alleged that this censorship came from the government. He said, “When I spoke to Jesal Thacker, who is the curator of the programme, she told me that she had instructions that nothing against the government should be said in the programme. They are questioning the propriety of my speech but if I would have raised this in private discussion they are ready to speak about it. So the questions that I am raising are not being discarded.”