Can some paint on paper really "damage" you?

Stop "Harming" Me!

by

“Do what you want if you don’t harm anyone else”. This is the foundation of India’s Constitution.

Isn’t it easy to “harm” someone these days? Look at these examples:

  1. Parents are “harmed” when their children marry against their wishes. So they kill them.
  2. People are “harmed” by Khushboo’s remarks on pre marital sex. So they take her to court.
  3. Society was “harmed” when homosexuality was legalized. So homosexuals are outcasts.
  4. People are “harmed” if a book on Shivaji is written. So the book is banned.
  5. Someone is “harmed” when M F Husain paints something offensive. So they threaten to kill him.
Can some paint on paper really "damage" you?
Can some paint on paper really "harm" you?

It seems everyone can choose to be “harmed” by what other people do – even when it doesn’t really affect them. Convenient isn’t it? There’s only one problem. It just doesn’t make sense!

The only type of “harm” which is acceptable in court, is one which causes measurable damage. The key word is “measurable.” So if someone hits me, the force of the blow, the ultimate effect on my body etc are all factors that can be determined from outside. If I’m robbed, the amount of money I lose is measurable. Every law exists to limit measurable damage to others.

But when khaps and parents claim for example, that their “honor” was besmirched because their adult children married against their wishes, that does not qualify as harm. In the first place, “honor” is a subjective word that defies measurement. Secondly, there’s no proof that any “damage” is caused when a person’s honor is taken away. These are intensely personal issues. They need to be dealt with in a way that doesn’t break the law of the land.

Why this focus on measurement? Because justice needs to be applied consistently and to everyone in the same way. If something cannot be measured in a way that is obvious to everyone, the law can’t punish someone over it.

However even so, there are some imperfect laws which seek to punish people for subjective and dubious “harm.” Laws relating to offensive books for example. But even here, the Indian legal system has set the bar very high for proving “harm.” Not every Tom, Dick and Harry can go around claiming that their delicate sentiments have been harmed by a book.

When the Indian Supreme Court struck down the ban on Shivaji’s book, here’s what it said:

“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. The class of readers for whom the book is primarily meant would also be relevant for judging the probable consequences of the writing”

Those who claimed they were “hurt” by M F Husain’s paintings fall into the latter category of “weak minds.” After all, strong minds are much more resistant to damage caused by simply viewing a pattern of paint on paper. Strong minds aren’t damaged by hearing the views and opinions of other people no matter how different from their own. Strong minds aren’t hurt when their adult children choose to take charge of their own lives.

So the next time someone tells you that society is being “harmed”, that “marriage is being destroyed”, that “People’s sentiments were harmed” and that “children are being corrupted,” just ask them one question. “Show me who exactly has been harmed, and precisely how much damage they’ve sustained!”

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (0)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

39 thoughts on “Stop "Harming" Me!”

  5. How about God? He is single handedly responsible for so many deaths, loss of property, loss of work-days (measurable harm). Can I sue him? Oh please, can I sue him?

    At least, let me sue the politicians…

    :)

    Reply

    • In reply to bhavia

      I think all of us get a "wtf" moment every now and then. We're so ingrained to care about "not hurting someone" that sometimes we just give in without seeing the absurdity of it…

      And welcome to the blog!

      Reply

  8. Bhagwad,

    These petty issues are the one that keep the feeble minds and uneducated masses involved. If the media and the leaders stop emphasizing these issues, no one will care about them. A small issue triggers a major uproar in India, is it because we are emotionally unstable and can be manipulated easily or the people who use these emotions need to constantly triggers such uproar to keep us involved and themselves in charge? I believe both.

    We are very week emotionally and anyone who knows how to play, does play with us. Now the question arises why do we let him do so. We are a united country of divided people. Divided by religion, caste, regionalism; divided by political parties we support, ideologies we support and so on. Thus when we ourselves are so much divided and emotionally involved, its uneasy for us to take control back from the unified forces…

    Would await ur comment…

    Reply

    • In reply to Sajid

      You're quite right Sajid. It's both. Some issues like the book on Shivaji, I'm sure no one care about. But some issues such as the decriminalization of homosexuality are deeply engaged in even without politicians.

      And you're correct about us being divided. We're so happy to separate into "us" and "them" that after a while, people view everything outside their immediate family as "them."

      Reply

  9. I very much share your concern. We get most sensitive when the thing is about religion and God. Though, ours is a secular nation, which had originally meant that religion must dictate/influence state policies (which also eventually included Judiciary's stand as their decisions affect common people and determine what is out of bounds or 'ideal' for the government and other organizations like schools).

    Why do we keep religion on this high pedestal?

    Very recently, an atheist blog reader with a pseudonym had derided a religious book, calling it "stupid" and saying "who cares what shit its words mean". I deleted the comment, not because it was hurtful, but because of the fear of IPC section 295-A. To one of the tweeters I pointed out that I would not have deleted a comment saying exactly the same thing about 'The Fountainhead' (a book which I hold dear). So, why is the Indian law, and social outlook making me delete such comment about a religious book? What's so special about religion – that we've accepted it to be above all kinds of criticism and reproach? I actually thought I was doing something unethical by deleting that comment. Because though I hold the administrative rights of my blog, I feel the comments' space belongs entirely to the readers, and I should meddle with it as little as possible.

    But I have to also add that freedom of speech is a very complex issue. I do not view things merely through the prism of does one have a right to do something?. I would also try to gauge a person's intent, motives behind doing such things, and their consequence. I, of course, would not believe that what I consider unethical should be disallowed by law or be made punishable under it, but it would make a difference to how much I respect certain people and how much would I like to associate with them. I believe, that much right I do have. :)

    I was heartened to read the SC's judgment above, but I also wish they say the same things about subjects dealing with religion (and not just historical figures), and in particular, all religions.

    A Karnataka High Court judgment, which sought to further elaborate on how to interpret IPC section 295-A had said the following:

    "While considering the case, the Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Section 295 stating that, Section 295 has been intended to respect the religious susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds. Courts have got to be very circumspect in such matters, and to pay due regard to the feelings and religious emotions of different classes of persons with different beliefs, irrespective of the consideration whether or not they share those beliefs, or whether they are rational or otherwise, in the opinion of the Court. The Supreme Court has held that, to find out whether an offense is made out under Section 295-A or not, the susceptibilities of persons of different religious persuasions or creeds is relevant and the Court has to give due regard to such feelings in consideration of the case."

    What I obviously find the scariest is what has been put in bold-face.

    I had done a blog post with hypothetical situations to try to examine the claims of 'freedom of expression' v/s the claims of 'being hurt' by them: here (click).

    Reply

    • In reply to Ketan

      Thanks for another detailed look at the issue Ketan :)

      Apart from religion, another thing that really sets people off is women's "morality!" But of course, the courts are much more supportive here.

      I always find it interesting that the Supreme Court's views are much more rational than any of the High courts. That's probably because the SC has the specific mandate to uphold the Constitution. So in the case you cited above, if it was taken to the SC, I believe the SC would have said that "The truth is a defense." against anything provided the intent is not malicious.

      Not as strong as I would like it to be, but pretty good for now.

      Reply

Leave a Comment