Today, more than ever, the debate is raging – should the freedom of speech be absolute or should there be as we in India say “reasonable restrictions” and I have always been trying to figure out why the debate rages given that it’s a no brainer. To me the right to speech is like the right to live – absolute. There cannot be reasonable restrictions on my right to speak up, no more than my right to draw breath. I understand that my stance would trouble the minds of people in charge of maintaining law and order as they have the added responsibility to temper the right to feel offended with the right to free speech, but I have the liberty to make my case. So, I come back to my original point, should the right to free speech include the right to offend?
Over the last few years I have been troubled by acts of violence against freedom of expression. I was too young when Salman Rushdie was hounded for his novel “Satanic Verses” but I do remember my countrymen targeting M.F. Hussain’s paintings and issuing death threats to him and forcing him to relocate to Qatar (where he stayed until he passed away in 2011). I also remember the banning of Rohinton Mistry’s “Such a long journey” by Mumbai University upon insistence from Aditya Thackeray (who has a family history of intolerance and hatred) and Shiv Sena burning the copies of James W Laine’s “Shivaji –Hindu king in Islamic India”. In each of these cases, I used to ask – why do people write things that offend others? Don’t these writers and painters have the common sense that if people get offended they will get these books / art banned and the whole purpose of writing/ drawing them is not served. I also openly supported the Government stance to ban, as I viewed it to be the only way to enforce the rule of law and maintain peace. In each of these cases, I must admit I had not viewed the paintings or read the books to make an informed judgment but sort of trusted the judgment of my Government.
The only exception came when Government of Tamil Nadu banned the release of Kamal Hasan’s movie “Vishwaroopam” following protests from ‘Muslim leaders’ who thought it represented Muslims in poor light. The reason I differed with the Government’s stand was because I had watched the movie in Hindi and did not see any portion which was offensive, in fact it was a very well made movie. Kamal Hasan lost a lot of money on the movie and vowed to never work in another movie in a land that does not respect freedom of speech. It was later known that the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had a personal beef with Kamal Hasan and she had misused her office to ban a movie that had no overt offensive portions. The Government of Tamil Nadu also arranged for “protests” so that the ban seemed genuine and the rest we know is history. This event got me thinking of the previous bans and wondering if in each of these cases the protests had been “arranged” for? In fact in each of these cases the alacrity with which the Government acted in banning free speech was hinting that the whole thing could have been stage managed. Almost like, sections of the Government machinery asked a few people to protest so that the ban can be enforced citing law and order issues. The judiciary of India has a lot to answer for in each of these cases as it allowed the executive to run amok and repeatedly insult the sacred trust that binds the Government and the governed.
After my experience with the Indian law of applying “reasonable” restrictions on freedom of speech, I looked up on the internet for examples around the world where the ruling Governments have erred on the side of freedom rather than the side of caution. Guess what, there is not a single example in the world where freedom of speech with “reasonable” restriction has not been abused by the incumbent Government against the governed to further their own agenda and ideology. I could not find a single example where the Government has told these blackmailers who hold the law and order to ransom to back off and has defended the individual liberty of speech. Almost always, the Government whose primary objective is getting re-elected has sided with the freedom to get offended exercised by the majority to unreasonably curb the freedom of the individual – in many cases an author or artist. So the threat issued by Islamic leaders worldwide and the fatwa issued by the Ayatollah resulted in the banning of “Satanic Verses” in almost all countries except the United States. The surprising part was nobody had read the book and yet nobody thought it was necessary to question these fatwas which was based on heresy. A celebrated author was hounded, forced to apologize and his publishers and translators were stabbed or assassinated all based the fatwa which was issued without reading the book. The Government of Rajasthan revoked the permission for him to travel to Jaipur literary fest of 2013 because the Muslim leaders of India were still raw about Satanic Verses written almost 25 years ago. This is one example of how so many countries – many of them governed by modern and forward looking leaders did not stand up to threats but tamely allowed the freedom of speech to be curbed. In India you will find several examples where the Government has stood in solidarity with the lumpen elements or looked the other way when they attacked freedom of speech and expression at regular intervals. India went a step further and formalized this via the Central board of film certification or CBFC whose job is to issue certificates to motion pictures screened in India but they use their office to ban films or section of films playing the moral police for the Government in power.
After I have made an elaborate case of how the Government cannot and must not be a custodian for protecting my freedom of speech because the Government is often dictated by the will of the majority even then the “will” is directed by spurious intentions. So who could be a valid custodian? The Judiciary? In countries where the Governments will side with the majority and bring unjustified injunction on the voice of the individual stating she was “creating ill will among communities” the fight becomes skewed against the individual who is now taking on the might of the Government and its battery of lawyers. So does this mean freedom of speech should and must be absolute? Well yes, an unequivocal yes. The reason being the harm an individual can do by misusing her freedom of speech can be minimal as compared to the harms the majoritarian view can do to individuals. An individual misusing her freedom of speech and expression could at most draw cartoons insulting the holy prophet (PBUH) but never physically harm anyone, however, the people exercising their right to feel offended just gunned down 16 individuals and caused severe mental trauma to several survivors and family members. There is a strong case for all countries to come up with air tight constitutional amendments in favor of absolute freedom of speech and not ask individuals to apply “restrain” when they express their views.
On the larger debate, I would also exhort all individuals to wield the weapon of “freedom of speech” responsibly and use it for the larger benefit of society rather than meaningless gratification. We all are aware of the far reaching impacts of our expressions and how speeches from great leaders have changed the futures of countries. So I would rather use my freedom to express to stand up for the right of the underprivileged or the unrepresented or something that is obviously wrong with the society rather than to settle personal scores by calling people names. I am appalled by scores of people creating hate websites, writing take down pieces in magazines, drawing insulting cartoons and making videos with sole purpose to hurt religious sentiments and or making incendiary / racist remarks. While I would hope people do not resort to these tactics, I would request with folded hands that these fringe elements must be ignored as that would be the best way to put an end to the menace of individuals seeking their 15 minutes of fame. Let there be no more bans on books / plays / movies or cartoons rather we have societies use freedom of speech to educate masses to be tolerant rather than extremist in their views, and where necessary learn to ignore the obvious attempt to provoke a reaction. The 6 letter N- word is not outlawed by any state / federal law in America but societies have helped successfully phase it out of common parlance. Imagine the power of speech / expression if this can be achieved without resorting to threats and violence.
So long…
Over the last few years I have been troubled by acts of violence against freedom of expression. I was too young when Salman Rushdie was hounded for his novel “Satanic Verses” but I do remember my countrymen targeting M.F. Hussain’s paintings and issuing death threats to him and forcing him to relocate to Qatar (where he stayed until he passed away in 2011). I also remember the banning of Rohinton Mistry’s “Such a long journey” by Mumbai University upon insistence from Aditya Thackeray (who has a family history of intolerance and hatred) and Shiv Sena burning the copies of James W Laine’s “Shivaji –Hindu king in Islamic India”. In each of these cases, I used to ask – why do people write things that offend others? Don’t these writers and painters have the common sense that if people get offended they will get these books / art banned and the whole purpose of writing/ drawing them is not served. I also openly supported the Government stance to ban, as I viewed it to be the only way to enforce the rule of law and maintain peace. In each of these cases, I must admit I had not viewed the paintings or read the books to make an informed judgment but sort of trusted the judgment of my Government.
The only exception came when Government of Tamil Nadu banned the release of Kamal Hasan’s movie “Vishwaroopam” following protests from ‘Muslim leaders’ who thought it represented Muslims in poor light. The reason I differed with the Government’s stand was because I had watched the movie in Hindi and did not see any portion which was offensive, in fact it was a very well made movie. Kamal Hasan lost a lot of money on the movie and vowed to never work in another movie in a land that does not respect freedom of speech. It was later known that the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had a personal beef with Kamal Hasan and she had misused her office to ban a movie that had no overt offensive portions. The Government of Tamil Nadu also arranged for “protests” so that the ban seemed genuine and the rest we know is history. This event got me thinking of the previous bans and wondering if in each of these cases the protests had been “arranged” for? In fact in each of these cases the alacrity with which the Government acted in banning free speech was hinting that the whole thing could have been stage managed. Almost like, sections of the Government machinery asked a few people to protest so that the ban can be enforced citing law and order issues. The judiciary of India has a lot to answer for in each of these cases as it allowed the executive to run amok and repeatedly insult the sacred trust that binds the Government and the governed.
After my experience with the Indian law of applying “reasonable” restrictions on freedom of speech, I looked up on the internet for examples around the world where the ruling Governments have erred on the side of freedom rather than the side of caution. Guess what, there is not a single example in the world where freedom of speech with “reasonable” restriction has not been abused by the incumbent Government against the governed to further their own agenda and ideology. I could not find a single example where the Government has told these blackmailers who hold the law and order to ransom to back off and has defended the individual liberty of speech. Almost always, the Government whose primary objective is getting re-elected has sided with the freedom to get offended exercised by the majority to unreasonably curb the freedom of the individual – in many cases an author or artist. So the threat issued by Islamic leaders worldwide and the fatwa issued by the Ayatollah resulted in the banning of “Satanic Verses” in almost all countries except the United States. The surprising part was nobody had read the book and yet nobody thought it was necessary to question these fatwas which was based on heresy. A celebrated author was hounded, forced to apologize and his publishers and translators were stabbed or assassinated all based the fatwa which was issued without reading the book. The Government of Rajasthan revoked the permission for him to travel to Jaipur literary fest of 2013 because the Muslim leaders of India were still raw about Satanic Verses written almost 25 years ago. This is one example of how so many countries – many of them governed by modern and forward looking leaders did not stand up to threats but tamely allowed the freedom of speech to be curbed. In India you will find several examples where the Government has stood in solidarity with the lumpen elements or looked the other way when they attacked freedom of speech and expression at regular intervals. India went a step further and formalized this via the Central board of film certification or CBFC whose job is to issue certificates to motion pictures screened in India but they use their office to ban films or section of films playing the moral police for the Government in power.
After I have made an elaborate case of how the Government cannot and must not be a custodian for protecting my freedom of speech because the Government is often dictated by the will of the majority even then the “will” is directed by spurious intentions. So who could be a valid custodian? The Judiciary? In countries where the Governments will side with the majority and bring unjustified injunction on the voice of the individual stating she was “creating ill will among communities” the fight becomes skewed against the individual who is now taking on the might of the Government and its battery of lawyers. So does this mean freedom of speech should and must be absolute? Well yes, an unequivocal yes. The reason being the harm an individual can do by misusing her freedom of speech can be minimal as compared to the harms the majoritarian view can do to individuals. An individual misusing her freedom of speech and expression could at most draw cartoons insulting the holy prophet (PBUH) but never physically harm anyone, however, the people exercising their right to feel offended just gunned down 16 individuals and caused severe mental trauma to several survivors and family members. There is a strong case for all countries to come up with air tight constitutional amendments in favor of absolute freedom of speech and not ask individuals to apply “restrain” when they express their views.
On the larger debate, I would also exhort all individuals to wield the weapon of “freedom of speech” responsibly and use it for the larger benefit of society rather than meaningless gratification. We all are aware of the far reaching impacts of our expressions and how speeches from great leaders have changed the futures of countries. So I would rather use my freedom to express to stand up for the right of the underprivileged or the unrepresented or something that is obviously wrong with the society rather than to settle personal scores by calling people names. I am appalled by scores of people creating hate websites, writing take down pieces in magazines, drawing insulting cartoons and making videos with sole purpose to hurt religious sentiments and or making incendiary / racist remarks. While I would hope people do not resort to these tactics, I would request with folded hands that these fringe elements must be ignored as that would be the best way to put an end to the menace of individuals seeking their 15 minutes of fame. Let there be no more bans on books / plays / movies or cartoons rather we have societies use freedom of speech to educate masses to be tolerant rather than extremist in their views, and where necessary learn to ignore the obvious attempt to provoke a reaction. The 6 letter N- word is not outlawed by any state / federal law in America but societies have helped successfully phase it out of common parlance. Imagine the power of speech / expression if this can be achieved without resorting to threats and violence.
So long…
1 comment:
I like reading your blog. Excellent prose and insights.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00p1brt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p036zqxr
Post a Comment