It’s obvious that the charges of sedition against Aseem Trivedi cannot stand. If anything, he loves the country too much – not too little. Only someone who is emotionally invested in a nation will take such pains to consistently spread the word about what’s wrong with it. No – it’s pretty damn obvious that sedition is not the problem here. Even Binayak Sen was granted bail and the courts are pretty strict about the specifics of sedition.
The real charge facing Trivedi is for “disrespect to national symbols”. He showed the Ashoka chakra with wolves instead of lions, showed the parliament as a toilet and Ajmal Kasab peeing on the Constitution. We’ve all been taught in civics classes that we must “respect” the flag and other national symbols. But is this good? In my opinion, these stupid laws need to go as well.
How can you mandate respect? Can you create a law saying “Respect this!” And how do you enforce it? Look at the following list of actions and tell me which you think is illegal:
- I merely think to myself “I disrespect the flag” – legal or illegal?
- I merely think of something bad like peeing on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I tell someone I disrespect the flag – legal or illegal?
- I tell someone I want to pee on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I write that I want to pee on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I draw myself peeing on the flag – legal or illegal?
Can merely thinking something be a crime? If so, then we’re all screwed. No – a mere thought cannot constitute a crime. But that is exactly what the law makes it! “Respect” and “Disrespect” are thoughts. You can’t criminalize a person’s thoughts and emotions. And if you’re thinking something, it’s natural that you say it. Words are only an expression of what you feel. And writing is merely words on paper. Cartoons are just thoughts laid down in ink.
All of these are victim-less actions. No one is hurt, no one’s freedoms are being taken away. In my opinion, every law should ask the question – does this protect anyone? Will some specific person’s life become better because of this? Sedition laws and rules preventing the “disrespect” of national symbols fail this test. I don’t care if someone does something to the Indian flag. How is my life affected?
Thought crimes are the worst kind of laws. And expression is merely thought being manifested in the real world via books, paintings or speech. All of these should be protected because if you don’t allow them, you have to ask – is thinking about them illegal too? Imagine that the government had a monitoring device for your thoughts and it could prove that such and such an idea came from you. Can you think of the kind of laws it would create? *shudder*
Sedition laws need to go. Laws regarding national symbols need to go. They don’t make anyone’s life better and are insufferable violations of the Freedom of Expression guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
People want to believe that only the symbols they respect are the ones respected by every one else and only those symbols should be protected. But the fact is there are a lot of symbols that other people revere and will be deeply offended if something disrespectful was said to them.
By nature many religions find it offensive by the mere presence of another religion. Which religion do we ban then? I am deeply offended when one does not treat their clothes properly and wears unironed clothes in public. Do we ban people from wearing un-ironed clothes then? You cannot just take the concerns of the majority here. That is not the way a free democratic country presents. Free speech / expression not only means that you can say whatever you want, but also allowing a person with opposite views to express whatever they want in a non violent way.
I fully agree with Bhagwad that we can walk away from what we find offensive. Whereas physical violence cannot be undone and it undermines social safety. The two cannot be compared.
Especially with respect to national symbols, as a citizen of the country I also have full rights to show my dissent when I feel that MY country is not progressing according to my satisfaction. Why is that a bad thing?
In reply to Meghana
Incidentally, India is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. Just like all developed countries. Pure democracy by definition means will of the majority. However, we (and lots of other countries) have a Constitution that lays down limits as to what the majority can do. And for that I am thankful.
We can walk away from something we find offensive only after experiencing that it is offensive. How can you walk away from something that has ALREADY offended you ?
You only come to know that something is offensive AFTER you have experienced it. By then the damage is done,
When you feel that your country is not progressing according to your satisfaction ( and most of us feel this way ) please do voice your dissatisfaction through discussions etc. It will be more constructive then drawing offensive cartoons about the country’s symbol ( has the country progressed in a more satisfactory manner since its symbol was desecrated ? )There is no need to mock it’s symbol ! Suppose you were angry with your parents for something would you smear their faces with tar ?
In reply to tp
Seeing something offensive doesn’t make one’s brain explode. You may get hurt, but that’s the price of a free country. It’s a very small price and people should think of how hard we fought to win our freedoms and happily pay it.
Once you’ve seen something you need never see it again. Also, most of the time you have ample warning. So if you see a link saying “Picture of Mohammed!” and you know you get offended by pictures of Mohammed, then it’s entirely your fault if you open that link and get offended. It’s like deliberately touching a hot stove and then crying when you get burnt.
Or you know that a particular movie is offensive by reading reviews, then again you have been warned. Most of the time, no one need ever see or hear anything that offends them if they really don’t want to be offended.
Also, are you talking about legality or how it would be nice to behave? I’m only talking about legality. Legally I should be able to draw offensive cartoons. I may not do it, but I should be ABLE to do it and expect police protection.
In addition, it is those who are ruling the nation who should be criticized not the country per se which might be represented by a symbol. What is the fault of the country – the land with its culture, landscape and history, that it should be condemned ? Condemn those who govern our country by all means; draw cartoons of them to shame them for their inefficiencies, ignorance, bad governance or corrupt deeds.
Once you have seen something that has offended you and you are really offended you will never WANT to see it again ! But the offence has been committed, the sentiment has been hurt, anger, resentment, hate have been generated and the damage is done.
There is no point in saying that the US or any other country allows this and that. If you are in a country whose laws do not allow this and that, WORK towards changing the laws or leave the country to another one whose laws are in tune with your thinking.
Its like firing a waiter for a menu that doesnt suit your taste or pocket. It has nothing to do with him ! You should ask to see the Owner/ Manager of the hotel to lodge your complaint or get up, leave and go to another hotel.
Same is the case when you enroll ( of your own free will ) in a college or school. You agree to abide by their rules. If you dont like the rules dont enrol in that school ! its so simple to see
In reply to tp
“the sentiment has been hurt, anger, resentment, hate have been generated
Adult humans are expected to deal with their feelings not act them out like children. I AM working to change the laws.
Incidentally, the Supreme Court of India agrees with me. Here’s what it said in one judgement:
“The effect of the words used in the offending material must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view.”
Even the court agrees with me – that reasonable adults are expected to put up with offence. These are the laws of my country and my Constitution.
It is in fact you who don’t agree with the Constitution. Shouldn’t you the consider moving to China or Pakistan where the government protects people’s precious feelings?
@ bhagwad,
Is this post supposed to be for the freedom of speech or for freedom to abuse? You yourself don’t seem to know what you are writing about. No one is trying to enforce respect. The constitution doesn’t order you to hoist the national flag, stand in attention and salute it. All it directs is that you are not to do things to the national flag which maybe you can think of even if you have bought it with your own money. If you are so offended by the national flag, you just have to practice what you preach. Just shut your eyes or look away.
Since you are so eager to point out the legal aspects, you should better know the facts right. According to the Article 19, clause(1) and sub-clause(a) of the Constitution of India – All citizens shall have the right – to freedom of speech and expression;
And further, clause(2) of the same article states that ‘nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.’
First you want your rights as per the law, and when your interpretation to a law is not what it actually is, then you have a problem with the law itself. And you further go on to boast that you agree with the constitution.
I feel forced to believe that you thus don’t have a problem with eve-teasing as well. If an adult woman is subjected to lewd comments by one or more males while she is walking down a street, you expect her to deal with her feelings as a mature adult and not react childishly. According to you, she should shut her eyes and ears and/or walk away. According to you, as long as such males don’t physically hurt the female or drag her away to rape her, such males should have the right to express their increased libido and should expect their right to be protected by the police. Similarly, the law regarding sexual harassment/abuse at work shouldn’t hold any value as per your views. If a male co-worker flashes a pornographic picture to his female colleague, she should shut her eyes and forget about it. Is that what you mean? Because as per you, as long as someone doesn’t hurt a person, he has the right to express his or her feelings. And maybe you will go on to defend touching females in public places as long as the touch doesn’t ‘hurt’ her. Ridiculous.
And then you harp about the concept of ‘how is my life affected’. Obviously, the crowd which stands around watching quietly while a woman is being publically harassed seems to have the same logic. Why to intervene when it doesn’t affect my life. And you seem to go beyond that if it doesn’t affect you even if your wife was being harassed. The misfortune of this country is that people like you are okay with everything that doesn’t affect their life.
But what is even more ridiculous is how you change your mind with every topic you write on. You wrote about the butchering of animals in one of your posts. How does that affect your life? Do they bring those animals to your house to slaughter them? But you seem to be interested even if it doesn’t affect your life.
Then in one of your posts about women being targeted for dressing provocatively, you state ‘If I choose to behave rudely to them, I fully deserve the consequences of my actions and I can’t plead temporary insanity.’ And you end it with ‘At the very least people should gather around and throw stones at these misbehaving baboons’. But here in one of the comments above you state ‘If someone abuses my wife, that’s her problem to deal with. Not mine.’ Do you think someone abusing your wife would be behaving with her? Your line of thought changes with each new post you write. Just in order to counter other comments, you don’t stop to think what you are writing. Writing up posts as per your views is fine. But backing it up with preposterous logic is something which won’t do much good towards portraying your sanity of mind.
@ Meghana,
Reading your name I assume you are a female. After reading your comment, i just want to ask you whether or not would you be offended if a group of males passed lewd comments to you in a public place. Do you think just as someone has the right to wear un-ironed clothes, should such males be allowed to make lewd comments as long as they keep a distance and don’t turn violent? Would you simply stuff your ears with your fingers, shut your eyes and walk away from something you find offensive? Or would you slap them and/or report them to the police. If yes, then is it just because un-ironed clothes are a lesser offence to you than being teased/harassed? Suppose if you use a public transport, will you simply walk away and not use it again just because there are those men there everyday? Or will you still travel and let them express their views without them being violent?
And what would you say if you were being accompanied by your husband who reacts saying, they are teasing you. So it’s your problem. Not mine. That is exactly the logic bhagwad seems to be applying here.
Secondly, if you are so distressed with the state of your country, you can always show dissent. But to those who are in charge of running the country. Not the country itself. If your driver isn’t driving the car to the best of its efficiency, you will question the driver. Or will you break down your car for that? Think.
In reply to Arun P
As for eve teasing – it depends. Do the people follow the woman? Does she feel a reasonable expectation that she will be assaulted? If the answers are no, then though the guys are jerks, they’re still within their legal rights.
If they follow her, then that comes under the definition of stalking and the woman is afraid for her physical safety. As for showing pornographic pictures to a colleague, if it’s at the workplace then the rules of the workplace itself will be in effect no?
However, none of this is relevant here – a flag is a piece of cloth and doesn’t have feelings. So while we can have an interesting discussion about eve teasing, this is not the blog post to do it in.
The constitution of India is good. But it can be better. It should be like the laws in more advanced societies where words without physical consequences are legal. That’s just civilized.
In reply to Arun P
//Do you think just as someone has the right to wear un-ironed clothes, should such males be allowed to make lewd comments as long as they keep a distance and don’t turn violent? //
So the right to wear unironed clothes falls in the same realm as (the right to) sexually harassing women?
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act ( which has the approval of both UPA and NDA governments ) has honour on its mind. In this act the flag represents the ” honour ” of the state and we are admonished never to disrespect or insult it.
This Act has provided an added justification for putting the young cartoonist in jail.
You dont like the Act then work towards repelling it. For as long as it exists, you will be legally convicted if you disregard it in India
In reply to tp
I AM working towards repealing it by building public opinion and working to get it struck down. That is the purpose of my blog.
There’s a good chance that the law violates the Constitution of India. And the Supreme Court should have a close look at it and strike it down.
And if honor is so flimsy that it can be destroyed by what someone else does, then it’s not worth having.
Bhagwad, you just can’t win with some people . Too emotional, not rational. But again, that’s free speech.
What i always wonder is if the state is greater than the citizen? Is the citizen only a digit to the country or does he/she has their own rights?
are some institutions so sacred that they cant be questioned or debated upon? Isnt it time we had a civilized debate on all these things or do we still continue with our normal shouting down the opponent or spreading canards about them just because their point of view is different from ours.
Shudder is putting it mildly. Laws should never be placed on ideas. Actions are all that should really count.
@ bhagwad,
Since you are so bent on making a complete fool of yourself publically, i wont try to prevent you from doing it as you have the right to do so. You have gone on to defend eve-teasers by saying they are within their rights to do so as long as they don’t follow the woman or get physical. Do you think there is a law in India that prevents people from walking behind a woman and in the same direction towards which a woman walks? Maybe you know of such a law but i don’t. In your own post you have mentioned that thinking cannot be a crime. But in your comment you say its wrong to follow if a woman feels reasonable expectation that she will be assaulted. So how does her thoughts of expecting to be assaulted be the basis of prosecuting a possible stalker? And how do you define stalking? Isnt it just the thought of the person being stalked? Which stalker do you know of shouts aloud that he is stalking someone? If a person stands in front of a woman’s house everyday watching her is he going beyond his right to freedom?
If we follow your logic, even stalkers are well within their right to freedom of movement. But the truth is that such criminals should be apprehended before they can take their freedom for granted and turn violent.
You said words without physical consequences should be legal. Who decides if a written text or speech would or would not result in violence? If you expect the whole world to be as emotionless as you, i hope that you wake up from your dream soon. However illogical and irrationally idiotic some people can be, there will always be such people who would resort to violence at the slightest of provocation. Laws are both preventive and punitive for the same reason. To expect everyone to ignore everything offensive is rather absurd. Just because there are logically thinking people who don’t get offended doesn’t mean you get preventive laws struck down ignoring the presence of idiots. Will getting laws removed change the minds of such anti-social elements too? Try telling a roadside stall owner to think logically and acknowledge the right to freedom of expression before he joins a group of rioters who feel their community is offended by a piece of art or text.
Of course this post is not about eve-teasing as you pointed out. Because in another post, your line of thought will be completely different. Eve-teasing was just an example to your absurd view that an adult person should be able to deal with his or her feelings and not act like a child and that every word spoken is fine until it physically hurts.
About the flag being a piece of cloth and not having feelings, you seem to agree that freedom of speech which offends someone’s feelings is wrong. But again in several of your comments above you consistently speak of people having to put up being hurt in a free country. It would be better if you stick to one thing. Either complete freedom of speech regardless of it being directed towards humans or imaginary and non-living objects, or restriction of freedom of speech as long as it is offending to humans with feelings. Are you really sure what you are talking about?
But i do hope you never suggest anyone to go and burn the Indian flag or even disrespect it in front of any Indian military establishment. Though I’m sure the military personnel are very logically minded people but that is just the limit you can test their emotions to.
@ Anand,
That was exactly what i wanted to ask from another commentator Meghna if she believes both the examples can be taken to be within the right to freedom similarly, something which holds true as per bhagwad’s views.
In reply to Arun P
“Do you think there is a law in India that prevents people from walking behind a woman and in the same direction towards which a woman walks? Maybe you know of such a law but i don’t.”
It’s called an anti stalking law. The definitions are fairly well defined. Read them up.
However illogical and irrationally idiotic some people can be, there will always be such people who would resort to violence at the slightest of provocation.
Then they should be punished. Only the people who actually indulge in violence should be punished.
“To expect everyone to ignore everything offensive is rather absurd.”
Most developed countries behave like this. Are you implying that Indians are inferior?
“you seem to agree that freedom of speech which offends someone’s feelings is wrong.”
I didn’t say that. I was just pointing out that comparing a piece of cloth to a human being is idiotic.
“Though I’m sure the military personnel are very logically minded people but that is just the limit you can test their emotions to.”
I don’t care who it is. Even a military person has to keep their hands to themselves or face the wrath of the law of the land.