"I would have desisted if I had known"

The actor Amol Palekar explains that he was not informed of what he could not say. denies that his speech was moved

A day after the incident of the National Gallery of Modern Art ( of NGMA ), in Mumbai, Amol Palekar stated he would have withdrawn from the program if he had been there. been informed in advance of speaking restrictions. He said that such incidents had increased after 2014, but he also said that the problem did not concern a particular party, but that it was to fight against censorship and therefore to be anti-establishment.

Palekar was interrupted during his speech before the retrospective of modernist veteran artist Prabhakar Barwe, when he began to criticize the decision to reduce the surface area of ​​the NGMA by organizing external exhibitions. While great artists and patrons, including former NGMA President Suhas Bahulkar, artist Brinda Miller and Professor JJ School of Art, Manisha Patil, had written to the gallery to express their dismay at the decision, it is Palekar who chose to publicly express against the decision. He was arrested by the organizers and was repeatedly asked to stick to the subject: the art of Barwe. Palekar's wife Sandhya Gokhale filmed the incident in its entirety and the clip has now become viral on social media. Many people have worried about freedom of speech and expression.

Explaining how the events unfolded that day, Palekar said, "The Prabhakar Barwe retrospective opened at the NGMA on Friday. I was invited as a speaker. I was interrupted – asked according to the organizers' version – and I could not finish my speech. When Suhas Bahulkar asked me to stop, I asked him if he was trying to stop and censor my speech. So Jesal tried to stop me and as it was she who invited me to the event, I respected her and stopped me. As I concluded my speech, I had to skip some of the way the shows scheduled in the gallery were canceled. The relevance of what I have said is being questioned. The answer is simple: when you invite me as a speaker, you should have informed me of what needs to be said and what is not. No brief of this kind has been given. I spoke to NGMA and changes in the organization's policy. So how does this become irrelevant? If they had informed me in advance, I would have chosen not to participate in the event.

Explaining his reasons for opposing the decision to restrict the gallery space, he added: "The advisory committee confirmed three events in 2019 and the dates were also specified. But after the formation of the new committee, only the retrospective of Barwe was allowed. This is a respected space for all of us and so we wanted to know why this decision had been made? Why did not we announce it and why is it impossible to talk about it on the spot? Why keep the lid closed? Open it and discuss the decision. If there is a policy, it should have been discussed. We could have accepted the decision. "

He also alleged that this censorship came from the government. He said: "When I spoke to Jesal Thacker, the curator of the program, she told me that she had been instructed to say nothing against the government. They question the merits of my speech, but if I would have raised this issue in a private discussion, they are willing to talk about it. So the questions I raise are not rejected. "