Arundhati Roy makes a lot of unpopular statements and holds very unpopular opinions. Her latest stunt of sharing a podium with Syed Ali Shah Gilani and supporting the separatist movement just carries forward her trend of preaching against the government after she expressed sympathy with the Naxals.
But what’s most interesting is that it has revived the old “Freedom of speech” debate. The TOI has a news article on how the government is planning to press ahead with sedition charges. It’s obvious that most (but not all) commenters on that story are baying for her blood, applauding the government’s move and advocating a wide and colorful variety of retributions among which include hanging her, deporting her to Pakistan, trying her for treason, jailing her for life, taking away her property…etc. etc.
Never mind the fact that she was stating an opinion, that she wasn’t abusing anyone, wasn’t inciting people to violence, and wasn’t indulging in hate speech. Sure, she may be shrill, her opinions may be extreme, and she probably has a screw loose, but so what? What happened to freedom of speech?
I’m really fed up with certain statements which keep getting repeated ad nauseum whenever this issue comes up. So let me rebut them one by one.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything. There are “reasonable restrictions”
Err – it kinda does. Freedom + Speech. What part of that equation is hard to understand? If you’re not abusing someone personally, you can say whatever you want.
If this was China, Pakistan, she would have been…(you know the rest)
Except that it’s not. This is India and freedom of speech is what sets us apart from Pakistan and China. Be proud of it instead of being ashamed. They must try and be like us. We mustn’t envy them.
Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean you can offend people
Yes it does. As long as someone isn’t abusing and spreading lies about you personally, they have the right to offend whoever they want. Because there are no rules for what people find offensive. Tomorrow a mullah will feel offended over a woman wearing jeans. Doesn’t mean I have to “respect his sentiments.” In a free country, you don’t have the right to be unoffended. Be a grown up and learn to handle offensive things like an adult will ya? Don’t go crying like a baby to your government for protection.
When the American pastor Terry Jones threatened to burn the quran, the American government had to plead and beg him not to do it. They couldn’t arrest him or threaten him. Because according to the law, he had freedom of expression. And that is the level of free speech we must aspire to.
If freedom of expression means you can only say those things which are unoffensive, acceptable to the majority and politically, and religiously correct, then what’s so great about it? Doesn’t every country allow that? If we’re going to make “Freedom of expression” a talking point, then it must be absolute.
Either everything is ok, or nothing is!
I don’t agree with what Arundhati Roy says, but she has the right to say it. Ignore her if you want, counter her points one by one if you wish, make fun of her through cartoons, songs, or plays. Write a book, or draw a painting. Those are acceptable, democratic, and Indian ways of protesting or disagreeing with something. By trying to jail her or shut her up using force, you’re just showing your weakness and insecurity.
Update: This whole sedition nonsense is crap anyway. The government was very quiet when the Khaps wanted to tear up the Constitution because it didn’t allow them to murder their kids. But an old woman who says silly things is an easy target no? Hang her!
Never mind the fact that as Sujith pointed out below, in Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar, 1962 the Supreme Court said that unless someone used violence or openly called for an armed revolt nothing they say can be called sedition. Here’s a good article on outlook analyzing this.
64 thoughts on “The freedom to offend”