A couple of
judicial orders relating to freedom of expression and Article 32 among others
attracted attention in the last few days. There was show ‘Tandav’ which
apparently showed Hindu gods in a poor light. This naturally led to an out roar
and leading to filing of complaints. The actors and producers and writers of
the show were complained about. As police registered FIRs at multiple places,
these grieved parties approached the Supreme Court for stay on the FIRs and
anticipatory bail for the same. The Supreme Court refused any interim
protection. Similarly in Madhya Pradesh, a stand-up comedian and his team were
arrested for allegedly hurting the Hindu sentiments in their show. They
approached the High Court for bail which rejected the same. These two issues
have again opened up the wide debate on the freedom of expression and the
limits that apply to it.
Unlike in the US
where the freedom of expression is absolute, freedom of expression in India is
subject to reasonable restrictions. These reasonable restrictions have been
used conveniently by others to target who they feel are inconvenient to them.
The recent events have proved that the usage of these restrictions are now
widespread on both parties. Yet what has remained constant is the stand of the
left liberal ecosystem which favours one over the other. While hurting the
sentiments of non-Hindus is subject to restrictions according to the
left-ecosystem, the same doesn’t apply for the Hindus who are offended by hurt
to their religious sentiments. This is where the differential treatment has led
to a sort of backlash. While the Hindus were derided for their legal attacks on
MF Hussain, the same was not applied to let us say Kamlesh Tiwari. Charlie
Hebdo cartoons could never be published in India but anti-Hindu cartoons could
go freely anywhere in the country. This differentials were essentially rooted
in the political calculations of the liberal secular chaterrati that is noisy
around the Lutyens circuit. Such top down discourse moulded on the lines of Marx
theorizing of civilizing the heathen natives would invite a bottom-up capillary
reaction is something given. Therefore, the current rounds should not be
surprising.
At the heart of
these counter-protests lies the fact that each religion, group, caste, sect,
gender or whatever classification might be will be possessive. Unlike in the
US, in India, there has been undue focus on punishing hurting of religious
sentiments and in specific of particular religion. In such a context, it would
be unsurprising that the other groups too would demand the same treatment. It boils
down to what in sociology is called the Broken Windows theory. Each religion or
group would seek to protect itself from encroachment by others. Some degree of
tolerance would have to be inbuilt, yet such tolerance demonstrated might be
taken as a signal of weakness. Such weakness would seek to be exploited
further. Therefore, the tolerance levels with passage of time would get reduced
to zero. It would send a signal to the rest of the communities of not taking
the particular group for granted. There is gated enclave and anything that
happens will have to be confined to the walled garden. In many ways, the
success of Islam owes considerably to its fanatic obsession to protecting its
turf even if it means taking ones lives or sacrificing themselves. This was the
origin of jihad in some ways.
Over the years,
Hindu reaction to offensive comments have been muted. They perhaps also have
been driven by the guilt tripping exercises over the years unleashed by the left
liberal ecosystem from the Nehruvian days in its alleged treatment of the
marginalised communities. Yet over a period of time, this tolerance level has
been breached. There were times when the left backed organizations could have
an exhibition wherein Sita was shown as Ram’s sister in the guise of multiple
narratives to Ramayana. This was abhorrent to the prevailing sentiments and
would entail backlash. The backlash was legal challenges to MF Hussain over his
nude paintings of Hindu goddesses. The current round of litigation is exactly a
continuation of the same. At the core of this is the cost-benefit analysis like
elsewhere.
To each
community, in defending itself, the strategy would lie in imposing costs on the
offending party. In the absence of such costs but presence of benefits however
miniscule would encourage the offending parties to continue with their tirade? Yet,
the presence of costs would make them think twice about the possible cost
benefit analysis. There is something normative and something realistic. The Indian
right wing thought process believed in the normative and continues to do so and
thus some price is being paid for the same. It is not about one sided freedom
of expression. It is a two-way or rather multi-way street. Islamic foundations
were clear in imposing costs however severe it might be for transgressions. One
might question these, yet without making value judgments, it would be perfectly
rational in decoding these prescribed punishments for violations. Hinduism on
the other hand has not built up those costs for transgressions inherent.
There is still a
clamour within the Hindu right wing to model on the US structures which evolved
in very different and albeit at times a pure Hobbesian context of the Wild
West. Those who are involved in filing complaints are essentially seeking to
impose costs and curtail the Overton Window of debate on Hindus. To a normative
free speech absolutist, it might be abhorrent. Yet there is a need to impose
costs. The price must be paid by those who seek to offend sentiments. The other
alternative would be to abolish the existing provisions that limit the free
speech and its manifestations. Abolition of these provisions can happen either
through legislative means or judicial interventions. The legislative interventions
are unlikely to happen anytime in the near future. Yet there is a possibility
of judicial redressal which incidentally is not on the agenda of the free
speech absolutists. They are content with their presence on social media and
some sections of the print and television media. The rational option however
for the moment would be to create a prisoner’s dilemma wherein each one would
lie within their boundaries with each of them being both individually and
collectively being worse off. The only solution to bring a level playing field
or moving the Overton Window to free speech absolutism in the context of all
religions would be to impose similar costs like others impose.
Comments
Post a Comment