Political Diary
New
Delhi, 9 April 2024
Man Our Netas Are Touchy!
HOW MANY WILL YOU PUT IN JAIL?
By Poonam I Kaushish
One man’s food is another man’s poison. A succinct testimony
to the ongoing maelstrom over growing intolerance for ‘perceived’ disparaging
and derogatory speeches in ongoing poll mania. Resulting in nationwide churning.
“If before
elections, we start putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on
Youtube, imagine how many will be jailed?” Queried Supreme Court while restoring
bail granted to a YouTuber accused of making derogatory remarks against Tamil
Nadu Chief Minister Stalin and detained by Tamil Nadu Police in 2021.
Emphatically asserting, “Everyone who makes allegations on social media cannot
be put behind bars.”
“We do not think
that by protesting and expressing views he can be said to have misused his liberty….”
Court added while taking note of the FIR filed against him for participating in
a protest opposing Babri Masjid’s demolition wherein he demanded release of
some detained individuals.
Last
year a senior TDP leader was jailed for offensive comments against Andhra
Pradesh Tourism Minister and is facing charges under several sections of the
Indian Penal Code. Controversial Hindu leader Yati Narsinghanand was arrested
in Haridwar for making odious and critical remarks against women 2022 but was
granted bail by Uttarakhand High Court.
In 2021 stand-up
comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested and denied bail for “poking fun” at Hindu
deities on claims made by a Hindutva vigilante group in Madhya Pradesh. Never
mind, he hadn’t made any statement involving Hindu gods. Leaving it to Supreme
Court which intervened and released him. In
2017, another comedian Tanmay Bhat was booked
for tweeting a meme of Prime Minister Modi with a dog filter on Snapchat.
And how
can one forget a consumer goods giant which was forced to withdraw a Karwa Chauth advertisement celebrating
progressive marriage view featuring a lesbian couple. Or a famous designer’s
“obscene” Mangalsutra billboard which
portrayed a woman wearing a low-neckline dress posing intimately with a man.
Big deal if it aimed to talk about empowerment.
A
clothing brand was accused of “defacing” Diwali by naming its festive
collection Jashn-e-Riwaaz. A
jewellery brand was forced to discontinue a commercial which showed a baby
shower organised by Muslim in-laws for their Hindu bride. Predictably, some BJP
MPs, Bajrang Dal and Yuva Morcha called these “insults to Hindu culture.
Alas, we
have been through seasons of intolerance whereby any film, book or artwork
which pokes fun or is not in sync with our leaders thinking, cause and outlook
is not only banned, vandalized and the offender arrested. Whereby, space for
liberal discussion is becoming narrower shown by repeated incidents of threats,
lynching and banning by self-appointed censors.
Questionably,
is India in an era of political intolerance? Have we lost the ability to accept
criticism? Bordering on a narcissist phobia? Is it mere coincidence or a sign
of an increasingly knee-jerk, reactionary country where one is forced to go
public about a frown, removal from job or punishment?
Is the
polity afraid of clash of ideas in public life? Is Government, Centre or State
crushing free expression, suppressing dissent? Are we so paranoid or intolerant
that any outpouring is viewed as a threat? Underscoring the narrow-minded
climate of political discourse we live in.
Obversely, does criticism of Government or leader
connotate putting a person behind bars? Is this a Government’s way of teaching
us a lesson in rashtra prem and desh bhakti? Do we want to produce
robots who only act at the command of what their leaders and chela thinkers, benefactors and wealth
creators’ desire?
Either
way, India is in the grip of self-styled chauvinism wherein critics,
intellectuals or hoi polloi are soft
targets with imprudent reactions taking over debates and calibrated
decisions. Life is lived in the slim
strip called official and every tweet, satire or defiance treated as a monster.
Big deal if this makes public discourse impoverished and toothless.
As
blinkered, dogma-ridden debates rage on it marks a dangerous political trend of
intolerance vis-à-vis freedom of
expression and personal choices. If this trend goes unchecked society will get
dangerously dogmatic and fragmented. Think. As India marches ahead,
enroute to being Atmanirbhar our
leaders need to realize in a mammoth one billion plus country there would be a
billion views and one is free not accepting views of others as it is a matter
of perception. A statement objectionable to a person might be normal to
another. cannot curtail people’s fundamental rights. At the same time we need to desist from acerbic and
speeches which spew hatred and narrow-mindedness.
Clearly, one cannot curtail people’s fundamental
rights. So do we pander to rabble rousers or muzzle their voices? No. Notably,
no licence should be given to anyone to spread hatred or the perilous
implications of their insidious out-pourings. They need to realise a nation is
primarily a fusion of minds and hearts and secondarily a geographical entity.
Besides, courts safeguard this right whereby citizens
enjoy fundamental right to have different opinions, criticize Government
actions and express disagreement with judicial pronouncements. The aim should be to raise the bar on public
discourse, not lower it any more than has been done.
Alongside,
our netas need to realize criticism
is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy. Take a lesson from leaders
world-wide who are more tolerant about what’s written or depicted about them.
Two classic examples of political freedom are former US President Trump who
continues to be mercilessly satirized globally and ex-Italian
millionaire-playboy-PM Berlusconi. In UK and France people take a lot of
liberties vis-à-vis their rulers.
Undoubtedly, when taking a final call Government and
Court should keep in mind that procedural safeguards almost never work in a
country where the prosecutorial proclivity to arrest overrides all else. An
example: Police used Section 66A of the IT Act long after it was scrapped.
Moreover, conviction rates languish in single digit underlining the scant
evidence that underpins such charges.
Additionally, the Apex Court’s thrust on liberty and
individual freedoms as guaranteed by Article 19. Certainly, the State must be
able to defend itself for what it considers derogatory and offensive but such
action should never come at the cost of Constitutional rights.
Remember,
democracy is not just a system of Government, it is a way in which evolved and
civilised societies organise themselves; within which people live and interact
with one another; based on the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. And
criticism is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy.
At some
point we need to realize that coercion has a thousand fathers, while liberty is
an orphan. As George Orwell said, if liberty means anything at all, it means
the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Hence, India could do
without netas who distort politics
and in turn destroy democracy and laughter.
India
was conceived as a democratic rather than majoritarian country wherein all
citizens have certain basic rights. When it
comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that
is of paramount significance under our Constitutional scheme. Our democracy
will not sustain if we can’t guarantee freedom of speech and expression. What
gives? ----- INFA,
(Copyright
India News & Feature Alliance)
|