Indian protests of the screening of The Da Vinci Code have ranged from candle vigils to hunger strikes. Christians make up roughly 2% of the Indian population.

But before the ban on Fanaa in Gujarat was turned into a burning issue by the media, the big story was The Da Vinci Code. A week before its release worldwide, something strange happened in India. The bizarre sequence of events began when a handful of people representing a previously unheard of Mumbai Catholic Group (MCG) demanded the movie be banned and asked for Indians from all faiths to join a fast unto death.

One of the 24-hour television news channels covered this protest. Not to be beaten, the other 24-hour news channels picked it up too and, to add a new twist, decided to interview people from a wide spectrum of Indian society, most of whom had not read the book and none of whom had seen the movie.

Not to be outdone by MCG, the All Indian Christian Council sent a request to the Indian government demanding that the Hollywood producers include a triple disclaimer with the movie. They wanted the disclaimer "This is a work of fiction" to be added at the beginning and end of the movie in addition to the regular Hollywood disclaimer that is included in all movies, "The characters and incidents portrayed and the names herein are fictitious, and any similarity to the name, character or history of any person is entirely coincidental and unintentional."

Sony Pictures and director Ron Howard turned down the request for the triple disclaimer but agreed to add one extra disclaimer at the end of the movie. This led to a week's delay in the release of the movie in India and the Censor Board of India cleared the movie for release without any cuts but with an "Adults Only" certificate.

Just as the situation began to settle down, state governments initiated their own bans with five Indian states — Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland, Tamilnadu, and Meghalaya —refusing to screen the movie.

For the Ban

Official Christian organizations announced that unless a disclaimer was added at the beginning and end of the movie, the movie should be banned. However, they didn't ask for it to be banned completely. Interestingly, the demand for a complete ban came from individuals and groups cutting across religious lines and was not only a issue for Indian Christians.

"Though I've not read the book, I have seen the trailer of the movie on TV," Saritha Reddy, a homemaker in Hyderabad said. "The trailer suggests that Jesus was married and had children. Indians are unique believers in fiction over fact. I think it would cause unnecessary problems and hurt Christian sentiments. So the movie ban is essential."

Basha Mohammed, an engineer, agreed. "I think enlightened figures of any religion shouldn't be ridiculed," he said. "Jesus is considered to be a prophet in the Qur'an. If this had been a movie on a Hindu god or the Prophet, I would have taken the same stand — ban it if it questions the faith. Much has been made of the fact that the movie is not banned in the Western Christian countries. India is different and our culture is different. So it is correct to ban the movie."

"It should be banned all over India," said another woman who did not wish to be identified. "If the Prophet cartoons can't and won't be shown here because it hurts Muslim sentiments, it is only fair to ban the movie as it will hurt Christian sentiments."

Against the Ban

One schoolteacher who would only identify himself as Thomas is against the ban because he says faith is not something that can be destroyed by a movie.

"I'm a Christian. I thought the book was interesting," said Thomas. "I don't think my faith can be influenced by the screening of The Da Vinci Code. Personally, I think it should be left to the people to make a choice on seeing it rather than impose a government ban."

Anandhi Amaranth agreed. "Even if Jesus was married as the book suggests, so what?" she said. "The government has created unnecessary controversy by banning it in certain states. It doesn't diminish my respect for Christianity as a non-Christian. I think most non-Christians are puzzled by the ban. Prophet Muhammad was married and had children as is Lord Shiva and other Hindu gods, but both Muslims and Hindus revere them. Why should it be any different for Christians?"

Other critics of the ban believe it was imposed by the Indian government to appease the religious minorities. "It is called appeasement of the minorities," said Vijay Madugula of Hyderabad. "What else does it mean when a two percent minority oppresses the majority with a fanciful objection and compels the government to act? How is Priyaranjan Das Munshi [Indian cabinet minister who belongs to the ruling Congress Party] qualified to decide whether I should or should not see the movie? Do I question his competence to be a minister following some Italian madam's dictates?"

Jayaseelan Ramasubramanium of Tamilnadu agreed that political motives were behind the decisions to ban the movie. "I most probably wouldn't have watched the movie but I am against the ban," Ramasubramanium said. "They would not have banned it if it had been about Hindu religion or Hindu gods, but our politicians will jump in if it is about any religious minority, for they need to keep their vote bank happy."

Swarmeena Natesan agreed. "Why else did the Tamilnadu government suspend the release of the film? The argument that it will create a law and order problem is shaky as there have been no problems elsewhere in India. The decision is clearly dictated by vote bank politics. The chief minister of Tamilnadu is a declared atheist and has decided to protect religions now?"

But perhaps what has angered people most is the suppression of freedom of expression represented by the ban. "It was absolutely wrong to ban the movie; it is a work of fiction," Debasis Das, a writer said. "If you allow this kind of ban, by extension, no one would be able to write creatively very soon. Whatever character you choose, it has to have color, creed, religion, etc. of some group or other. Then anybody can raise the issue of being offended, even though that character does something, which is a story born from the author's imagination and is therefore fiction and so on. You write a story about how some murderer is punished in a story, someone somewhere can get offended because the murderer was a Hindu or something!"

"I've read the book and didn't find it offensive," Raman Nautiyal, a statistician based in Dehradun said. "The ban on the movie violates the freedom of expression."

Kamal Singh, a media analyst based in Mumbai, said that perhaps the government should focus on more important issues. "The film should not be banned for a number of reasons," Singh said. "[The ban] violates the right to freedom of speech, the censor board cleared [the movie] and no other Christian country has banned it. The book is not insulting at all; in fact, the ending is a damp squib. The controversy is unnecessary. Has the Indian government solved all other pressing problems that it decided to get involved in something like this?"

Da Vinci's Say

The Censor Board of India cleared the movie after much debate and discussion. With five state governments banning the movie, opponents of prohibition have filed claims at high courts in all states of India, though no rulings have been issued yet.

Many people are pointing out the fact that the institution of the ban by individual state governments overrides the authority of the Indian Film Censor Board, thereby questioning the rationale for its existence. But perhaps, most importantly, is the ruling of the Supreme Court of India, which refused to allow the ban. This actually makes it illegal for the movie to be banned.

Meanwhile, state governments maintain the film's screening can affect law and order in the respective states. Still, no film-related incident of violence has been reported anywhere in India where the movie is being shown.

Whether or not the ban will ever be completely lifted, not just in India but in other countries as well, perhaps the opinion of Leonardo Da Vinci himself can assist the decision-makers: "You do ill if you praise, but worse if you censure, what you do not understand."