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.
How do you define offensive speech? What is offensive to some may be appealing to others, and vice-versa…Also, defending the right to make offensive speech is not the same as encouraging it…Some offensive stuff can emerge as a result of free speech, but there’s a whole lot of good that comes with it too…
Arundhati Roy’s statement is an example of why freedom of speech needs to be protected by the Constitution…Unpopular, unfriendly, provocative, insulting, and hurtful ideas require protection, not friendly and gentle ones…Laws can’t guarantee protection from being offended and it would be stupid to even try to introduce such a law…
Unfortunately, we have become a nation of name callers and belittlers…We no longer “debate”, we argue…We confront differing viewpoints, beliefs, and ideas like school children picking fights at the littlest of things…A new professional class has appeared consisted of those who specialize in finding offense, no matter how inconsequential, in every news item or utterance by a celebrity or politician…
In reply to Sraboney
“Unpopular, unfriendly, provocative, insulting, and hurtful ideas require protection, not friendly and gentle ones” I agree. I have this quote on my side bar,
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular. ~Adlai Stevenson
In reply to Indian Homemaker
That’s always been a favorite quote of mine :)
In reply to Sraboney
Yup – I’m just happy that the government isn’t charging ahead to arrest her. It means we have an image to maintain, and in the long run I feel we’ll keep getting closer to that image.
I completely concur with your opinion that everyone has a freedom of expression, but then they should also face the consequences of their actions. If someone insults me, its that person’s freedom of expression. If I slap the person, it is my freedom to retaliate and defend my self esteem. By the same coin, Arundhati is correct in expressing her anti India views, wish the guys who broke that loony seminar up could have landed a few telling blows at the mad men and women on the dias.
In reply to Phoenixritu
I second that!!!!!
In reply to Phoenixritu
Also, the government is just looking for easy targets. When the Khaps wanted to tear up the Constitution because it didn’t allow them to murder their children, the government was quiet as a mouse. When they said they didn’t want to live in an India where they couldn’t pursue their barbaric practices, the government took great care not to offend them.
But when an old woman states an opinion no matter how outrageous, she’s easy pickings. The whole damn country falls on her and wants her to be tortured and “taught a lesson.”
Faugh! It disgusts me.
Well said. Loved every argument.
My favorite,
“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.”
I sort of disagree to your argument. For those who maybe shaping an opinion for any group of people hanging on to their words, the freedom to speech IS restricted by (1) Responsibility of sharing factually correct information (Roy’s views on Kashmir not being Indian territory are disputable to the point of being ridiculous.) (2) Being wary of sounding instigatory for the sake of peace (Isn’t this the reason we took the moral high ground and told news channels that they should not be making a ruckus about the Ayodhya verdict even if they were “just stating facts”? Isn’t this why most of us found the ToI headline “2 parts to Hindus, 1 to Muslim” offensive the next day?)
You may argue that Arundhati Roy isn’t asking people to hang on to her words but the truth is that there are people like Naxalites willing to come out and talk to her rather than to any representative of the state. Surely she inpsires some trust there, and kudos for her to have got that. Can she really brush it aside and say that she is going to say whatever the heck she wants to without checking up facts and not care that it can have huge consequences?
If this is about whether she deserves to be booked for sedition for this, is not my decision as much as it is not yours. It is in the hands of the judiciary that we’ll do well to trust – after all, we aren’t Pakistan or China.
In reply to Neha
This is a tough one and I admit there are some grey areas here. But the thing about Roy is that she’s not a leader, but a writer. She hasn’t (so far) crossed over the line from ideaology to planning. If she does that, then I believe her right to free speech has come to an end.
Unlike people like Praveen Togadia, she doesn’t stand on a stage with thousands of people and incite them to violence. Nor does she indulge in hate speech. So I feel that’s a line she hasn’t stepped over yet.
As for sedition, it’s a slippery charge and as you said, depending on the mood of the judiciary we’ll have to wait and see what they think of it.
In reply to bhagwad
Bhagwad,
Thanks for the response. But see, her statements have never been facts or even adequately supported opinions. Most of them are rather inflammatory and crude statements with no evidence whatsoever. Well, I’d liken her to Togadia in many ways. Here are some out of the mouth of Arundhati Roy:
On Kashmiri separatism, she says: “Kashmir should get azadi from bhookhe-nange Hindustan”. How did she arrive at this conclusion? What message is this sending to separatists / Kashmiri youth at her rally?
On 2008 Mumbai terrorism attacks: She called terrorism heartless but called it a consequence of the 1947 partition! As if that is linked or even justified it in some way!! How far is this kind of thinking from what Kasab’s bosses think is their ‘mission’ or ‘Islam’s revenge’? Shouldn’t there be a better explained logic to a Booker winner’s opinion than a staunch fundamentalist’s?
On the Naxalite movement: She denies that there’s anything to be felt for CRPF jawans or anyone who has lost their lives to Maoist terrorism because it’s retaliatory action towards Indian govt’s ‘war on the poorest people in the country’. Surely that’s a thumbs-up for the young “red revolutionaries” she met!
I don’t know better than you or anyone else, and also fortunately I have nothing to gain/ lose in any of these issues directly so I am not offended, but there’s so much rhetoric and irresponsible shooting-off-the-mouth included in her repartees, it’s dangerous to imagine that someone somewhere might be holding her statements as the gospel truth.
In reply to Neha
But I feel that’s a dangerous line of reasoning because where does it stop? After all, almost any statement criticizing the government can be interpreted as a justification for terrorism. We have to draw a line somewhere and till now I feel the best line is that where a person doesn’t actively call for arms and violence.
After all, people must take responsibility for their actions no? And if Roy doesn’t incite violence she can hardly be blamed if someone takes up a gun and starts shooting.
Also, I have a suspicion that if she were to be given a chance to defend her statements, she would be able to do so in one way or the other. No matter what she is, I hardly think one can call her stupid!
In fact, the best case for not doing anything has already occurred. No one is taking her seriously, and she’s making a fool of herself. If not for the hullaballo, we may not even be debating this!
In reply to bhagwad
You’re right.. where does it stop? And it works both ways. Today we are bending over backwards to accommodate Roy’s “opinions” no matter how much harm they do, tomorrow we’d force ourselves to see some merit in Bal Thackeray’s Jai Maharashtra agenda also. He’s never called for arms or violence either you know.. only played it smart and just expressed his opinions on North Indians or Muslims or hapless authors or young people wanting to celebrate Valentine’s Day.
Why don’t we expect Shiv Sainiks to “think for themselves”? One good reason is that most of the Sainiks (and I can only speculate) hang on to every opinion of their “leader” and have little resources to build an unbiased opinion of their own. And that’s the reason why they are dangerous. There’s one man who can clearly provide evidence that he didn’t call for arms, and then there’s a mob which took his word for everything as the truth and cannot be held accountable. That is the understanding why we hide in our houses on a Shiv Sena declared bandh day or on the Ayodhya verdict day, isn’t it? But it’s also the reason why the educated world would want to see him lynched AND if need be, taken legal action against, should another round of riots break out because of his separatist ideologies?
Well then, I’ll go out on a limb and disagree with “nobody is taking her seriously” in Roy’s case too. Someone is! And that someone is probably an impressionable 16-year old Naxalite or a 20-year old Kashmiri “jihadi” who think of her as their hero in the rest of the world, and can cause more damage than you or me who are the ones not taking her seriously.
This blogger says it much better than me.. Worth a read:
http://siciliandefence.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/arundhati-roy-is-dangerously-wrong-on-kashmir
In reply to Neha
I’m not advocating any merit in Roy at all. I’m just saying we should let her have her say. And yes, that includes Thackeray’s loony opinions too much as I dislike the man.
But Thackeray has called for violence several times. He’s openly said that his people (note how he uses that phrase) will protest “sena style” and that people must “watch out for consequences.” If the government exercises its power with even half the vigor with which it’s targeting Roy, Thackeray would be in jail several times over.
But it’s easier to target an old woman with no political power. Roy has never had “followers” the way Thackeray or Togadia has. I find it impossible to believe that Thackeray has never told any of his followers to indulge in violence. No freaking way.
But that doesn’t mean his followers are blameless. Regardless of Thackeray’s words, the thugs and goons who carry out his orders are just as culpable. That they’re not punished is a failure of the law and order machinery in Maharashtra and not a failure of the constitutional right to free speech.
In reply to bhagwad
Bhagwad,
Believe it or not, Thackeray has never openly called for arms. It’s just his fundamentalism-infused speeches and a product of the (much abused) free press – “Saamna” – that do the trick of instigating a jobless and agressive bunch of people. And how is Roy different? I’ll say it again: When you are an opinion-maker and you know it, your freedom of expression cannot be as frivolously used as just another person’s. Journalist, politician, writer, social activist, diplomat – all of these cannot afford to underestimate the power of their words.
And well, an old woman with no political power – I agree! But who’s targeting her? There might be charges against her which if at all pressed, will be sorted through the legal route afaik. And from today’s news, that seems like it’s not gonna happen. So yeah, hardly anybody targeting her.
I only brought up the followers being culpable or not thing because you said that people/ followers should take responsibility for their own actions. Law and order in Maharashtra is as much at fault, but that doesn’t let Thackeray off the hook for misusing his right to express his opinions. Constitutionally, I’m not an expert but it’s not rocket science to figure out that there are some people amidst us who get away with saying total unsubstantiated rubbish that goes on to do a lot of damage.
Not that I’m one to bay for her blood or anything but I don’t want to be counted as one of the humanitarian supporters of free speech, if her ill-researched statement causes people to kill each other.
Anyway, to each their own.
In reply to Neha
If it were up to you, would you put Roy in jail for what she said?
In reply to Neha
No. Nobody can put her in jail for that. If it were up to me though, I’d ask her to show good evidence for what she says or else be barred from further addressing an open audience. Sedition, treason or anti-nationalism comes much later; first the priority of any govt. should be about protecting peace IMHO. Infact, Bal Thackerays and Varun Gandhis of the world deserve the same too. Anybody who has little internal check on what their rhetoric could result into, should have to go through external checks.
In reply to Neha
Ok. And if she were to provide some justification for what she said? It may not be how you interpret history, but suppose she were to give her own interpretation of the facts which support her view. What would you do then? Would you ban her from writing about it or talking about it?
In reply to Neha
Facts are facts. Either Kashmir was historically part of India or it wasn’t. So interpretation really matters little. However, since the issue is disputed, I’d not support anybody who consciously ignores the sensitivity of the disputed matter and airs opinions (either for or against the nation) in personal capacity. Do you really think she can “provide justification” for her having given an unsolicited ruling on something that’s hanging undecided for 60 years? I don’t think this is open to personal interpretation anymore.. not even of politicians or historians!
Let me ask you: If 10 different people were to have their personal interpretation each of the Kashmir issue and wanted to address the Kashmiri people on it, should nobody be banned?
In reply to Neha
The issue is fraught with definition problems. We need to define “India” before 1947. We need to define “part of” and many other things. These are valid questions of debate for historians. Put India and Pakistan across the table and see if you can adjudge the facts for yourself. It’s hardly black and white.
I agree you may not support someone who ignores the sensitivities of people. But my question is if you were the government committed to upholding the constitution and the law, would you ban her?
She hasn’t giving a “ruling” since she’s not a court. She’s given her opinion which is her right.
To answer your last question, would you ban them? On what basis? You’re willing to make yourself the arbitrator of who says what? I don’t think I have the right to decide which human being can speak what. I would let all ten speak as long as they just talk about ideas and don’t cross the line into inciting violence. What other choice is there?
In reply to Neha
I’m sorry I don’t agree with that.
In reply to Neha
I respect your feelings on this matter. I’m only asking what other choice is there?
The government’s hands are tied by the law and the Constitution. I’m glad that the government doesn’t have veto power of my speech cause it’ll only be a matter of time before it abuses that power. It’s one of the things that make India so special.
Not going to happen.
1. It would be detrimental to the international image of India. Roy is too popular in the Anglo-Saxon world. Why risk bad press?
2. In the Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar,1962, SC’s constituitional bench has said that it wouldn’t be considered sedition unless there is/was a call for armed revolt or related encouragement of violent reaction
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/111867/
In reply to Sujith Abraham
That’s a brilliant reference! Here’s another one on outlook which mentions the case.
Call for armed revolt or use of violence is critical for a sedition charge to be upheld.
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.
I could never express this so well! I feel exactly the same.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
I love how people pay lip service to freedom of expression, and then in the same breath go around saying “except for this, and that, and that…”
Hi, I’m from the UK.
I had similar thoughts when people complained about Nick Griffin, the head of the British National Party, being put on “Question Time” (for those not in the know it’s a popular UK political program where an audience asks questions of a panel consisting of Politicians and a few other celebrities – the name is based upon “Prime Minister’s Question Time” – a regular feature of our parliment).
People were saying that this objectionable racist shouldn’t be allowed to answer questions or express views as this would give him a stamp of authenticity as a politician (admittedly no-one was calling for his blood but the principle is still the same). What they missed when they said this is that if you give someone as ignorant and prejudiced as Nick Griffin freedom of speech you give them enough rope to hang themselves. Griffin came across as the ignorant fool that he was and another point was scored for freedom of speech. It not only allows the truth to be spoken but most of the time also shows up the lies and foolishness for what they really are.
If you have the time and are interested it’s fully documented on YouTube – note the title of this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIHNJP9e9EQ&feature=related
Also it provides ample fodder for satires such as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QAvkFS_cgk
I’m sure some people reading have as much of an idea of who Nick Griffin is as I have of who Arundhati Roy but if she’s as crazy as you say then give her freedom of speech then satirise her. Or even better still – let her satirise herself.
In reply to Timothy Rayner
I think that’s a great point. Let the public hear them. People have more common sense than we tend to give them credit for. These guys undermine their own cause with their nonsense. An excellent defense and also the easiest!
In reply to Timothy Rayner
Mr.Rayner,
I have only a peripheral idea of who Mr.Griffin is, but Arundhati Roy was and still is in some circles a highly respected thinker and social activist. The extremism that she increasingly appears to be comfortable with is LWE not right wing or racist. She is very well spoken and has quite a way with words; mentally very agile and can probably run rings round a debate opponent. If anything I suspect she is too taken with her own cleverness.
There is some screechiness and a growing discord with “middle India”, the TV watching kind but she isnt going to be a self-caricature. She has enough support among those who believe she is “afflicting the comfortable”.
thanks,
Jai
In reply to Jai_C
But if you read the opinions of people all around, she manages to have done just that – made a caricature of herself. Even those who support her right to say anything she wants (like me) think she’s lost a few marbles. Whenever one becomes shrill, that’s what’s going to happen.
In reply to bhagwad
Thanks Bhagwad. My response was limited to the TV debate question originally raised here. I think she would run rings round a standard-issue BJP politico who would drape himself in the flag and at best try to affect an air of injured martyrdom (at worst his thumping screechiness will overpower any developing disquiet we have at Arundhati, he will save her case by being more obnoxious). Manish Tiwari / Jayanthi Natarajan of Congress will IMO do a better job but at best they can salvage a draw. Karan Thapar with his erudition, relentless focus and somewhat bullying style could best her. But his shows dont seem to be about equal debate; he is the host and the hapless guest often gets grilled.
Come to think of it this will be quite a matchup: KT vs AR. Anybody else you can think of?
re. the caricature:
IMO an opinion-maker is the most discredited when his/her supporters or natural constituency start disowning and even criticizing her.
I havent checked recently but sites like Kafila and many other lefty (and non-lefty) blogs I read are at least maintaining a “diplomatic silence” on her more recent outbursts; to me the withdrawal seems to have started after the Dantewada massacre of 76 policemen. They’re not yet auditing her marbles.
My expectations are probably too high but I hope there is a screech level beyond which they will get to that.
I think though AR’s behavior is essentially all tactical: make very provocative statements, and then come back with anguish and “love for India”. I will settle for any criticism of AR from the left on this ploy of hers.
thanks,
Jai
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.
I think this is what some people don’t understand about freedom of speech, yes you have the right to be offensive, but the people who have problem with this don’t seem to realize is they have the freedom to condemn something which they find offensive, because that’s also freedom of speech!!!!
Sheesh. >_<
In reply to RenKiss
Yep, no one’s asking them to keep quiet. Each side is free to raise the decibel level if they wish to.
Bhagawad,
I don’t understand why you promote “ignoring” something offensive. As RenKiss said , being offensive and condemning it falls under same freedom of speech.
And if you do not agree with something strongly and if you ignore it you, know what happens ? There will be less voices from your side, leaving opposite opinion spreading across. Now in a educated society this should be OK, cause they could pick and chose what they want. But In India many(uneducated) dont have ability to form their own opinion. So they pick nearest and strongest, this is what we call disaster. So “dont forget to vote and dont forget to express” :-)
In reply to bachodi
I agree wholeheartedly. I’m all for condemning her within the limits of free speech – means no violence.
But ignoring someone is usually a good defense because sometimes people want the publicity. But hey, no one’s forcing peace either!