Censorship has a thousand fathers; free speech is an orphan. Not simply an orphan, however one that’s abused on a regular basis. The extent of abuse rose increased this month as a police grievance was filed in opposition to Samajwadi Social gathering MLA Abu Asim Azmi over his remarks praising Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
Now, Aurangzeb was not a pleasant man; he was a bigoted king who killed his brothers, imprisoned his father, and brutally handled Hindus; he additionally imposed the detested jaziya tax on non-Muslims. Lauding such an individual is offensive not solely to Hindus but additionally to Sikhs; he bought their ninth Guru, Guru Teg Bahadur, executed. But, in a democracy, no one ought to be prosecuted for holding views which are offensive to somebody.
A liberal democracy ought to uphold the ‘hurt precept’ as an alternative. John Stuart Mill, one of many biggest champions of liberty, mentioned that “the one function for which energy may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized neighborhood, in opposition to his will, is to stop hurt to others.”
A travesty of the hurt precept is the ‘offence precept’; it lowers the bar for imposing restrictions on freedom of expression; worse, it introduces ambiguous requirements for the curtailment of liberty. It additionally leads us to the treacherous territory of ‘damage sentiments.’ Hurt is goal (bodily, monetary, and so forth.), whereas damage sentiments and offended emotions are subjective. The legislation is, or must be, guided by goal realities, not felt subjectivities.
Ideally, damage sentiments or non secular emotions shouldn’t be the grounds for proscribing free speech. Sadly, India (like Islamic nations) has anti-blasphemy legal guidelines. What’s extra unlucky is that these draconian legal guidelines are being invoked indiscriminately. The Marine Drive police have reportedly charged Azmi with Sections 299, 302, and 356(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
However Part 299 says, “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the non secular emotions of any class of residents of India, by phrases, both spoken or written, or by indicators or by seen representations or by way of digital means or in any other case, insults or makes an attempt to insult the faith or the non secular beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of both description for a time period which can prolong to 3 years, or with advantageous, or with each.”
Azmi’s laudatory remarks on Aurangzeb are certainly deplorable, however how on earth any reward for a merciless emperor can outrage “the non secular emotions of any class of residents of India” or “insult the faith or the non secular beliefs of that class”?
The proper method to cogently refute the false and deceptive contentions of a e-book is to not burn or ban it however to jot down one other e-book or publicly argue in opposition to it. Equally, the right solution to trash Azmi’s twisted concepts is to reveal them, to not prosecute him.
Police and administration entertain complaints in opposition to politicians, filmmakers, writers, and so forth., by claiming that their feedback, films, books, and so forth., can set off riots or trigger legislation and order issues. Given an opportunity, they’d proscribe or severely curb any comment by any individual on any topic, for something can damage sentiments or outrage non secular emotions. The ethical obligation of the judiciary is to curtail the excesses of cops, not the liberty of expression of residents and politicians. The judiciary should converse the language of cause and prudence.
As I wrote earlier, “With out the ballasts of rationality, poise, and gravity, sentiments behave like malfunctioning robots; fortuitous combos of circuits make their working arbitrary and sometimes harmful. Unbridled sentimentalism events the basest human instincts, grossest feelings, and stupidest concepts; it promotes the proclivity to capitulate to the cantankerous and the intractable, and it inevitably leads to politicians’ covenants with self-righteous charlatans and pious goons. All within the identify of not hurting sentiments. The most important casualty, after all, is the liberty of expression.” (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/tyranny-of-hurt-sentiments-padmavati-controversy-typifies-how-in-india-democracy-is-made-to-stand-on-its-head/)
The results are grave for politics, society, and tradition. The world across the tomb of Aurangzeb, who died greater than 300 years in the past, has witnessed violence. There have been clashes in Nagpur’s Mahal space, leading to accidents to over a dozen folks, burning of vehicles, and stone-pelting.
The votaries of Hindutva are clamoring to erase Aurangzeb’s traces from historical past; on this endeavor, they’re counting on the feelings of Hindus. At current, the saffron brigade is within the ascendant, however instances change; a unique breed of political activists can even use the identical sentimentalist and sanctimonious means to undermine Hindutva ideology. For instance, some enterprising Odiya politician can launch a marketing campaign in opposition to Biharis for the bloody conquest of Kalinga by the emperor Ashok greater than two millennia in the past.
Moreover, the boot may be on the opposite foot. The champions of Hindutva mustn’t lose sight of this actuality.
If somebody may be tried for admiring Aurangzeb, another person will also be prosecuted for praising Ashok or some other king. That can deal one other blow to free speech.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the writer’s personal.
END OF ARTICLE
