1. Freedom of Expression is not a priority for most Indians
2. There are simply not “enough of us” to make the government care
3. India has more important problems than Freedom of Expression
4. Our voice will never be heard

I hear statements like this all the time. And over the past five years or so, my rights to free expression in India have been steadily eroded. The recent IT amendments allow anyone to take down content if they find it “blasphemous” or “offensive”. We bloggers have not been silent  of course. We blogged about it. We’ve tweeted our hearts out. We’ve created Facebook pages and signed petitions.

But we have never… ever… made it an election issue.

Never once has anyone ever stood up and said “I will vote for the party that supports unqualified freedom of expression in India.” Note how many communities support freedom of expression as long as it is directed towards someone else. Recently, when Salman Rushdie was intimidated against visiting India and when the Jaipur literature festival wasn’t even allowed to have him on video conference, everyone seemed outraged. “Muslim fanatics are taking over the country!” “Freedom of expression is under attack!” Yet these same individuals lent their support to the thugs and goondas who hounded MF Husain out of the country for paintings that were “offensive to Hinduism”.

So I’ll just say what needs to be said. I will vote for the party which openly supports freedom of expression regardless of whom it offends.

I’m aware that my voice is small. I’m aware that I’m not a priority for politicians. But this is the least I can do. I have a voice – and I’m making use of it. By itself it will mean nothing. I know for a fact that many Indian bloggers agree with me. I have met several wonderful individuals who share my views on a wide range of topics ranging from equality of women, to freedom of expression. This interaction is made possible ONLY through the Internet. A medium which has no boundaries. For me, it goes much deeper than that. I rely on the Internet to earn my living.

I see no reason whatsoever why bloggers should not get together and vote as a bloc. But we must keep one thing in mind. We are INFLUENCERS. Our strength does not lie in numbers, but in AMPLIFICATION.

There are two examples of this. Remember the Nira Radia tapes? There was a complete media blackout of that whole affair. But the collective outrage of Internet citizens like us forced the media, the government, and the courts to sit up and take notice. More recently, Kapil Sibal’s idiotic statements about prescreening comments on social networks also drew our collective outrage. We forced him to take back what he said and the next time he will think twice before spouting such irresponsible nonsense.

In both cases, the absolute number of people engaged in discussing these issues was miniscule compared to the population of India. We didn’t organize any dharnas, strikes, or agitations. But we talked about them. We blogged about them. We tweeted and used hash tags. And we were noticed.

Bloggers, and Internet citizens need to take an electoral stand. For those of you who feel that there are more important parameters on which to choose a political party, consider this. There is no material difference between the Congress and the BJP. They have no economic ideology. Each repeats the actions of the other when they are elected.

“Freedom of Expression” on the other hand is an attitude. It implies tolerance. It implies open-mindedness. It implies maturity. Intelligence. Equality. Courage. It implies that one has control over one’s mind. Qualities that we as a people and our political class are sorely lacking in. Surely that is something worth voting for?

We need not have the numbers. We have the tools necessary to make our voice heard loud and clear. I repeat – our strength lies in AMPLIFICATION. For this reason, we cannot merely become “just another number”. For we will lose the numbers game. In terms of sheer votes amassed, we might not be able to match the traditional vote blocs. We cannot win a pure numbers game.

But here’s the secret – neither can the hardliners. THEIR power stems from being able to influence other people too. You really think those protesting against Salman Rushdie have even read his book? No. Someone else read it and told them how to react and how to behave. The hardliners also rely on amplification and not just numbers.

THIS is a battle we can win.

So how do we amplify our voice? We have to prevent ourselves from becoming “just another number”. For this reason, we avoid strategies which represent us as just “one more”. Such methods might leave you feeling satisfied that you done something, but I doubt if it’ll get us very far. Strategies like this include:

1. Creating a Facebook page and asking people to “like” it (just click the “like” button and you do your good deed for the day!)
2. Creating a petition asking people to sign it (I’ve never heard of anything come of these things)

Moves like the above reduce us to mere numbers. That’s not the game we want to play. In order to AMPLIFIED, we have to:

1. Blog about our support to a party that promises unrestricted Freedom of Expression
2. Post comments on articles, news items, and other blogs about this requirement
3. Post your preferences on your favorite social networks. Encourage your friends to share it
4. Use the #indiancensorship hash tag to consolidate our activity
5. Many people like my mother still share using e-mail. Make use of it to reach those who don’t use social networks.

There would probably be other innovative ways to amplify our voices. Remember the pink chaddi campaign and what a massive impact it had? That was because the act of physically sending a real world object has an impact which the virtual world can’t compare with. Perhaps we too need to send a fitting representation to our political leaders :)

It’s time we stood up to defend the medium we all use, love so much and take for granted every day. Who knows? We might even get the ball rolling towards finding a viable alternative to the Congress and the BJP! That would be a huge boost for our country.

So what do you think? Is it time for Indian Internet citizens to vote as a bloc and demand that our chosen candidate support unqualified Freedom of Expression in India and all that it implies?

Dump in Trash = Censorship?

I’m not against private discretion where people have the right to publish or not to publish anything in their personal space. Every newspaper for example has its own philosophy. The Times of India, is an openly liberal newspaper. They’re also a private company. As such, they have the right to print or not to print anything they like and it wouldn’t be censorship. Those who say that newspapers have a “social responsibility” to publish “just the facts” and to treat all facts equally are simply wrong. Such rules exist only in their own minds.

Similarly, blog owners have every right to allow or disallow certain comments on their blogs – or indeed “prescreen” comments outright. After all, we own our blogs. Our blogs are our private space on the Internet. It’s up to us to decide what kind of experience we want to offer to our readers. If that includes a non-abusive comments section, then that is our prerogative. Equally, a blog owner has every right to NOT moderate comments – though personally I prefer to visit only those blogs which have a certain level of moderation by the author. I expect the blog owner to keep the discussion clean, but that is their choice. If I find the blog owner is not willing to take any interest in promoting a healthy and name-calling free debate, I simply don’t visit that blog anymore.

Look at it another way. When someone comes to your house, you expect them to behave with a certain amount of decency. This is not to mean that they have to agree with everything you say, but etiquette demands that they don’t do something egregious like peeing on your carpet! If you find their behavior obnoxious, you have every right to eject them from your house. This doesn’t mean that you’re “impinging on their freedom”. It simply means that you expect them to behave when they’re in your house. However, no one is preventing them from going to their own house and peeing on the carpet to their heart’s content!

So is the moderation of comments on the blog censorship? No, it isn’t. Censorship relates to the stifling of speech by the government. Demanding decent behavior when a guest is on your property on the other hand is merely an extension of your property rights. No one has unlimited freedom on another person’s private space.

1. Websites are Private Property. No one forces you to visit one

Kapil Sibal and others seem to liken the Internet to a public road where someone is standing on a podium hurling obscenities. This is a laughable error. On a road, the passerbys have no choice but to listen to something offensive. Loudspeakers don’t require the permission of the listeners to get their message through. So if someone wants to avoid them, they have no choice. This is why there should be restrictions on what people can just stand up and shout in public. Because no one is obligated to listen to anyone else.

The Internet however, is totally different. Every single website on the planet is owned by someone. Is paid for by someone or the other. This blog which you’re reading is mine. It’s not public property. You’re reading this as a guest in my personal space. You choose to come here. I didn’t force you.

So if you get offended by something I write,  just bloody leave. I promise my website won’t follow you. You have complete freedom to shut yourself off from offensive content. Unlike a public speech on the road, you make the choice to get offended.

If you see a Facebook page saying “I hate Muslims”, it’s not going to carry speeches from Vivekananda! You jolly well know what’s inside. If you still go in, read something and get offended, it’s your own fault. Don’t blame the creators of the content. It’s their page. You are a guest.

Let’s make this even more clear. If you deliberately go touch a hot stove and get burned, do you blame yourself or the stove? If you go to a house and see a box saying “if you open this, you will get hurt” and you open it, whom do you blame? Similarly, when someone sends you a link via email which says “OMG this will totally piss you off!” and you click on that link, guess who’s fault it is?

Yep that’s right – you. You’re an adult. Take responsibility for your actions. You type a URL, you choose to take the risk of getting offended. Your fingers click a link, it’s your job to respect the rights of the owner of that website. It’s their home. You are a guest. You don’t choose to go into someone else’s house and demand that they change the layout of their furniture.

2. We’re not “your people”, you pompous prick

Sibal’s quote saying “We have to take care of the sensibility of our people” is so outrageous, I’m shocked no one has objected to it so far.

Dear Kapil, listen to me loud and clear. You’re a politician – not fucking Moses! You are our servant. We’re not “your people”. We don’t belong to you. You’re not the caretacker of our sensibilities. You’re not our father, mother or guardian. You no right to speak for “our sensibilities”.

I’ve always had a problem with the phrase “ruling party”. India is not a monarchy where people “rule”. Parties are allowed to govern for a time – and that’s it. But in India we still look upon politicians as kings, which is why they can get away with horrific statements talking about “their people”.

So Sibal, mind your own business. We can take care of our sensibilities well enough. It’s not your job to look out for the adults of India.

As long as comments posted on the Internet are on private websites which people choose to go to, there should be no restriction on anything. Even hate speech should be allowed. Web users are smart enough to punish a website by not visiting it. We’re not drawn on strings towards hateful content.

Look at Wikipedia. It’s run entirely by the users. The government has no say in what’s put up on Wikipedia. Editors are regular people. And look at the quality! Does Sibal think the government could have done any better? Ordinary people are not stupid. We know what is offensive content and how to deal with it. We all see the “flag as offensive” buttons and we make the choice to click it or not. You’re not welcome to make that choice for us.

Apparently you have a problem with a Facebook page showing morphed pictures of Sonia Gandhi. Did you know that it would offend you even before you saw it? Yes you did – because someone would have shown you the link. Why did you open that link if you knew it would offend you? You chose to get offended. And you dare blame the creators of the site?

Just because you’re a child doesn’t mean that the rest of us don’t know how to take responsibility for our actions. So please don’t project your juvenile behavior on to the rest of us.

Sibal, why dost thou a canopy of tyrany stitch?
Little snarky snippets of thought,
Facebook scraps which are but naught,
Hold fast in your brain and make it itch!

Devious harms you alone see.
Disasters reaching to the sky.
But since we don’t rule by royal decree,
Acute sensitivity from the heart you must pry.

‘Tis true that courteousness must be cultivated,
And responded to in kind.
But bad manners must needs be tolerated
Politeness into law cannot be signed.

Perhaps you worry it’s not merely cheesy,
And abusers might actively seek to harm?
But dear Sibal, expressing dislike is easy.
“Internet courage” is no cause for alarm!

People need an outlet for their rile
Freedom of expression is our safety valve.
Clamp down on it at your peril – for we will fight.
Lèse-Majesté is not our style.

No "Buts". This guy is a thug

There’s always a “But” woven into the sentence. As if they agree with the principle and still applaud the the act. As if it was justifiable somehow. Let me therefore state categorically for the record – there is absolutely no justification for physical violence.

Instead of explaining myself, here are two instances showcasing the “but…etc etc.” culture.

Incident One:

Salman Taseer was murdered almost a year ago. His crime? Daring to raise his voices against the oppressive blasphemy law in Pakistan. The big problem is that the law is hugely popular there. The overwhelming majority of people feel that freedom of expression is dangerous. Even among the educated class, statements like this were frequent:

“Salman Taseer should not have been killed. At the same time….etc etc”

“Violence is unacceptable, but the people’s anger etc etc.”

“There’s no justification for killing someone. Nevertheless…etc etc”

If the more educated statements were of this sort, you can imagine the outpouring of support for Taseer’s killer in Pakistani society at large. Roses were strewn on his path when he was taken to court and there was no shortage of lawyers eager to spring to his defense. Most think that he should be hailed as a national hero in Pakistan.

While closer to home:

Prashant Bhushan was severely beaten up by a group of thugs for speaking his mind on Kashmir. Apparently, speaking of a plebiscite in Kashmir was enough to invalidate his right to freedom of expression. It’s not a secret that many die hard Indian “patriots” are against a Kashmiri plebiscite. So they employed the above tactic of superficially condemning the attack on Bhushan, and then adding the word “But!.”

Here are some actual statements from the comments section:

“Prashant has the media to highlight his views on Kashmir and call it freedom of speech. But…etc etc”

“What happened is insane and what prashant bhushan thinks is his own philosophy but…etc etc.”

“I condemn this act. But…etc etc”

“ I m not supporting attack on Bhushan, but…etc etc “

Do you see the similarities? The response to the assault on Sharad Pawar is only the latest incarnation of this duplicitous speech. I don’t have any great love for politicians. But tomorrow it could be any one of us who is attacked for saying something unpopular and going by the example of how the public reacts, the thugs will be emboldened the next time.

So let’s put an end to this “but” culture. This is not to say that all issues are black and white. Many have gray areas. However, there’s a line. Physical violence is unacceptable. Let’s stand up and draw that line clearly in the sand. And not tolerate any transgressions by condemning them fully and without qualifications.

Article Gist and URL:

A reality show contestant from Big Boss gets an offer to star in a porn movie. Link

And here’s the comment:

i maratha and i speak marathi. why i no understand this story. wht it say? why they no talk about marathi people. marathi actors. we are also good. handsome, good talker, good dancer. but media no do it. why? ask yourself. so you tell the media to suport us. mind it

A good start to kick this off eh? :D

1. India was the greatest power in the world for thousands of years
2. Muslim invaders came and destroyed Indian culture
3. Indian knowledge was far ahead of its time and was the envy of the world
4. India had the greatest philosophers
5. India had the wisest kings
6. India had the best warriors
7. The British stole India’s Kohinoor! etc etc.

You get the idea..

They are made with the utmost passion and are usually followed by a tirade of how India has fallen from greatness, has embraced “western imperialism” and needs to get back to its roots. Modern society is degenerating, homosexuals are roaming freely, and women are “losing their modesty”. Honestly, I’m astounded at how often I hear such nonsense.

Beware the Evil Muslim Hordes!

Let’s assume it’s all true. Obviously there’s a good amount of idealization, glorification and whitewashing, but I’m going to ignore it for now. Pretend that India was the greatest jewel on the planet for thousands of years, that all the rulers were paragons of virtue, justice and wisdom. Give in to the belief that evil Muslims came and destroyed everything great about this paradise hundreds of years ago and imposed their barbaric rule, culture and laws upon it.

I may be asking for too much I know, but bear with me. Now that we’ve descended into self delusion and absorbed this nauseatingly glorified past, I have just one question.

So…bloody…what??

Indians living today share nothing but a few bits of DNA with our long dead ancestors. We didn’t know them. They certainly didn’t know us. We have no connection to them. But still we want to somehow claim greatness based on their (supposedly) lofty stature in the past. In effect, we want to bask in undeserved glory. The reality is that the deeds of those before don’t confer superiority on us today. Those who lived and died hundreds of years ago are strangers to us.

It means nothing. We have no business to feel proud.

I’ll tell you the kind of people who look to the past to find glory and feel better about themselves. Those who have no achievements of their own. People who think themselves so worthless and without anything to brag about that they have to dig up old glories of India – imagined or not – to elevate themselves and compensate for their current failings.

The atrocities committed hundreds or thousands of years ago have no bearing today. Those responsible have long since died and crumbled to dust, beyond the reach of our laws. Even those who suffered have been extinguished. The past is past. Let bygones by bygones.

Advocates of the past justify bringing up these old non-wounds by saying we must “learn from history” and trot out that famous saying “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This might have been valid if there was a danger today of Muslim hordes overrunning India today. If there was a risk of barbarians on horses frothing at the mouth waiting to convert every Hindu into a Muslim.

But there are no such barbarians today. There is no threat. We have far bigger problems than Islamic terrorism threatening us. Perhaps we’re afraid of tackling them and so find an easy target to blame everything on. It’s the evil Sonia Gandhi and her Christian pals in Rome! It’s the minority appeasing Congress that wants to convert every Hindu into a Muslim and impose Sharia law!

If only things were that simple and the enemy was so clearly outlined. But they’re not. Nothing is simple. We have far deeper and real systemic problems which we need to address. Finding an enemy to swing a sword at is just childish. We desperately need to grow up.

Can you Blindly Obey?

But would I give up my life for it? After some thought, I’ve decided the answer is…No.

A “nation” is too vague an idea for me sacrifice something so precious. I can imagine giving my life to protect someone close to me – someone, or some people I love. Such as a family for instance if the threat is serious enough. But I can’t imagine dying to protect man made borders to which I have no real close connection.

In short, I would make a poor soldier.

It’s because I’m unable to blindly follow anything. I can never fully submerge myself in a larger entity, a larger cause, and will myself to shut my eyes to everything else. My core individualism simply doesn’t allow that to happen. I’m glad there are some people who can do that – put their lives at risk in unquestioning obedience to their superior officers. But there shouldn’t be too many. After all, that’s what fanatics are made of.

Just Following Orders?

I view my life as too precious a gift to squander away without a tangible benefit. I get one shot at living and will dissolve into nothingness when I die. It’s so brief a spark after all. We’re all born alone, essentially die alone – and that’s the end.

Sometimes tactical sacrifices are needed in war. Maybe a contingent to delay the enemy for a while. They’re expected to fail. And often, only the superior officers know the expected outcome. Only they know the overall strategy. The rest of the soldiers are pawns. Pawns who don’t question why they’re asked to do whatever they’re asked to do. I could never be that pawn. To relinquish my grip on life just to serve a higher cause under someone else for purposes I don’t fully understand…not for me.

What does this mean as an Indian? I know it’s patriotic to say that you’ll give your life for your country. I know there’s no law saying that you must want to give up your life. And that’s one of the reasons why I love India. But how much is it expected informally? Are Indians expected to lay down their lives to protect their borders?

How many people are like me? Would you give up your life for your country in the manner outlined above?

Fanatics love this kind of world

Can you imagine anyone objecting to this world? (Apart from criminals of course) Nothing could possibly be wrong in such a perfect set up where justice is meted out immediately and efficiently. Could any “regular” person be against this system?

But strangely, there are many “normal” people who would hate such a world. They would fight tooth and nail against it and would destroy it given the chance – the fanatics. And I don’t mean the slavering at the mouth rabid mobs which one usually associates with fanatics. I mean regular quiet and reasonable looking people who could be your neighbor or your milkman.

Fanatics of anything whether they be the Afghan Taliban or the jingoistic Indian “patriots.” For them, a world where you can’t beat someone up for saying something objectionable, for not dressing properly, for being gay and for falling in love with an “inappropriate person” would be…horrifying!

If you have a new ideology and want a convenient yardstick to find out whether or not it’s the right one, ask yourself the simple question – “Would I fear a world where I can’t beat someone up?” If the answer is yes – if you would fear such a world, then there’s something  wrong with your ideology. If you hate a place where you can’t solve a problem without your fists, there’s something wrong with the way you think.

What defines the Taliban? Is it that they’re Muslim? That they live in Afghanistan/Pakistan? That they dress in a certain way or speak a certain language? No. The Taliban is defined by the fact that they use violence to control people. To control what they say, what they wear and what they worship. Anyone who does the same is called the Taliban.

When fanatics beat up Prashant Bhushan, they were using their fists to control what he could say. They were the Taliban no less than the gun totting masked thugs in the Afghan mountains. When Islamic fanatics cut off the hand of a professor in Kerala for something he wrote on his question paper, they were the Taliban too.

This is the benchmark we must apply to all ideologies, all faiths and cults. Do they rely on solving problems with their fists? If so, then they are the Taliban.

What about you? How would you react to a violence free world – with excitement? Or Horror?

Bribing to Convert - Illegal?

Say a priest offers to give a house, money, food, or treatment to a destitute Hindu in exchange for their conversion to Christianity. If that person then “converts,” is it classified as a forced conversion? I had this argument with one of my friends some time ago and it still surprises me that people think doing this should be illegal. Of course, as an Atheist I couldn’t care less what religion a person follows, but it’s the principle of the matter.

Say a person is in terrible need. I go to them and give them a way out as long as they convert to my religion. Am I to be penalized for given him or her a choice? My offer in no way makes their life worse. They can still do whatever they were going to do had I not approached them in the first place.

Think of it as a car uncontrollably sliding down a road towards a cliff. There’s no way out and you’re going to die. But then a side road open up ahead – leading to some place where you have to pay a price for using the road. Does the appearance of that side road force you to take it? Does it worsen your situation in any way? No. If you take the road, it’s because you chose to take it and you can’t then blame the owner of the road for extracting whatever price they’re going to extract. It wasn’t their fault that you were sliding down the road into the cliff in the first place.

Similarly, a Christian priest isn’t responsible for a person’s destitution. By giving them a way out and converting them to Christianity they’re merely offering a choice – a side path. A person can still choose not to take it. But the mere presence of a choice doesn’t make a person’s life worse. It can either make it better or make no difference. So why penalize the priest for offering the choice which many people are obviously grateful for and happy to pay whatever price is asked?

Again, I don’t care about religion in general but forced conversions seems to be an important reason for Hindus being pissed off at either Christians or Muslims. Unless of course, the person is threatened with torture or violence unless they don’t convert. That is a real forced conversion. Not the mere offering of benefits.

Sadly, the Supreme Court in 1977 ruled that even offering benefits in exchange for conversion was illegal. That is a wrong judgement in my opinion since it ignores the rules of common sense.