The cowardly attack on Prashant Bhushan, was met with a wave of flag waving and jingoistic outbursts with people saying that anyone who threatens “national unity” deserves to be beaten up. Moreover, the criminals got bail which isn’t surprising. But I have my own poetic solution.
Those who don’t agree with India’s Constitution regarding Freedom of Expression can please leave this country. I don’t care how “proud” you are of India or Kashmir. I give two hoots about how you feel about precious “national unity.” If you don’t like unfettered freedom of speech, India is not for you. Please get out of my land.
Freedom of Expression is more important than Kashmir. It defines India. Kashmir doesn’t define India. Kashmir is not the soul of India. Freedom is the soul of India. And that’s what needs protecting. That’s what you should really get patriotic about. Don’t call yourself “patriotic” and then slam freedom of expression. If do you that, you betray what India stands for. You should leave.
What makes India special? With neighbors like China and Pakistan, why is India a beacon of hope in an otherwise repressive region? It’s freedom. Freedom to do whatever you like as long as you don’t physically harm anyone else. True, the Constitution has a list of “reasonable restrictions” on freedom of speech but over the years, the Supreme Court has narrowed down these rules further and further.
When Khushboo made her remarks that men shouldn’t expect virgin wives, the court said there was nothing wrong and asked the “protectors of culture” to show one person who had actually been harmed. In Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar 1962, the Supreme Court said that even “sedition” was not an offence unless the person speaking was specifically inciting violence.
So unlike what most people think or like to feel, India is a country where you have the freedom to offend anyone you want. No one has a right to remain “offence free.”
Even the most repressive countries in the world allow “nice” speech. No country bans patriotic speech whether it’s China, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. India is different. India is a free country, it has to do something more. It has to allow unpopular speech. It has to allow offensive speech. It has to allow “unpatriotic” speech. In short, barring libelous speech which has to actually target a particular person and unfairly “harm” them, all speech is tolerated. So says the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court which is the guardian of the Constitution.
So once again. If you disagree with India’s way of functioning, I humbly ask you to leave my country and go wherever you want. I don’t care where you go. Just don’t remain here. Because if you remain in India, and don’t support freedom of expression, you’re a traitor to my land.
The last para from Wikipedia
In my observation, freedom of expression is (ab)used by the Indian Left as cover to continue anti-national activities.
The Left has no mandate – the drubbing they got in the elections is proof of that.
In practice, India’s media is heavily coloured by its political preferences. NDTV and the anti-Hindu rag they ironically call The Hindu, is anti-India, pro-China and decries nationalism to the extent that serving / loving India and it’s history and culture is a dirty word. The Hindustan Times, I understand, is run by a Congress MP. There are a bunch of regional party owned media like Sun TV. So in all cases, freedom of expression is curtailed by ownership. Bias, in short. If you really cared about freedom of expression, this media bias would concern you.
In theory, India’s Constitution values nationalism as a duty. True, a duty is not legally binding but there is still the inherent hypocrisy inherent in claiming to love your country, but dismissing it’s cultures, history, and not caring about its territorial integrity. Hence, my recommendation for Arundati Roy and you to renounce Indian citizenship.
Incidentally, would you like to ask Digvijay Singh to leave India for goonishly beating up a journalist, too? Digvijay is clearly not in favour of freedom of expression, either.
In reply to Matt
I simply don’t consider its culture, history and Kashmir important. So the fact that I dismiss them isn’t proof that I hate my country. I love what I consider important – freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is meant to be abused. If no one is allowed to abuse it, we don’t have “rights” – only privileges. A “right” by definition cannot be taken away no matter what.
All your observations regarding newspapers are your opinions – not facts. If they’re facts, provide reliable references and I’ll believe you. Otherwise no.
And anyone in India can start a newspaper. I know – I started one after all. So if there’s demand for alternative reporting, the free market will take care of it.
About Digvijay Singh, do you really need to ask? What’s so special about him that I need to separately answer a question about him?
You are evading all my questions…you consider the freedom to abuse your country more important than it’s territorial unity.
Are you reluctant to say anything about Digvijay? Just want to see if you are consistent and whether by your logic, he should leave the country.
What I wrote above is factual. Prove me wrong. it’s easy to check ownership and political affiliation of the bigger newspapers.
In reply to Matt
Come on! It’s obvious that Digivijay Singh’s threats against free speech are unacceptable and he should leave. Why would I ever say anything else?? Do I have to comment individually for each person separately when there’s a general rule in place? What was the point of this specific guy and for what reason would I treat him differently? What him and not some other person – is he special in some way?
Before you ask me about the thousands of other people in India who oppose FoE, let me state that my post applies to all of them – no need to question me about exceptions. I thought that went without saying. Have I given you reason to doubt otherwise?
You say I evade your questions and yet you evade mine. You never told me what was so special about Digvijay Singh that I needed to answer a question about him separately.
Since you went down this road, here’s a list of other questions I’ve asked and you haven’t answered. Are you “evading” them?
1. Why the Sikkim info?
2. What separates us from China if only “nice”, polite, and “patriotic” things are allowed to be expressed?
3. Where have I used my freedom of speech to indulge in abuse as implied by you above?
4. Which country in the west is “turning to India’s past achievements?
All these questions I have asked you at various points in this comment thread – not one of which you’ve replied to. I’ve done the decent thing and not accused you of “evading” my questions. Yet you do the same to me.
Please be reasonable next time when hurling accusations.
The myths of media ownership are popular, overstated and ridiculous. I’ve written about them here: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/politics/indian-media-debunking-ownership-myths.html/
And here is the TOI’s “official” position over its political leanings: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-01-15/edit-page/27771628_1_editorial-newspaper-views
Answers
1. Sikkim – just FYI since we were querying a date
2. FoE is better in india but the left rules the media – see ownership. And a dynasty rules it’s politics. This compromises FoE. Millions still have no voice. Votes are bought.
3. Referring to Arundati Roy and the indian left
4. Many people e.g. German, American Vedic scholars, yoga masters, popularity of vegetarianism, meditation, pranayama, etc.
In reply to Matt
You still didn’t tell me why you asked me about Digvijay Singh. Are you “evading” my questions?
Strictly speaking, ownership of the media has nothing to do with FoE. FoE refers to the government imposing restrictions on FoE and making certain speeches illegal. The media is a private enterprise.
Besides, the Internet has ended the dominance of the traditional media companies.
There are abusive voices on either side of the spectrum. In fact, the right wing uses far more dirty and vulgar words than the left. At least Arundati Roy doesn’t use crass abuses. So you’re cherry picking your data.
Finally, westerners take whatever they want and don’t give a damn about India. They adapt and sell yoga by themselves, modify the meditations and even try and patent them! You’re deluding yourself if you think this means they have any respect for India – modern or old.
Bhagwad, take a chill pill. Your language indicates you are ruffled.
I asked about Digvijay since his actions were against FoE, but there was no mention of him anywhere on your blog till now. Given he is the spokesperson and general secretary for the largest party in government, I am surprised at your silence on him till I pressed you repeatedly for an answer.
And don’t broad brush all Westerners. As long as there are Indians like you who don’t value India’s territorial integrity, it’s culture and history, how can you expect Westerners to, as you say, “give a damn?”
There are many Indians packaging and selling yoga too – heard of Bikram yoga? And what about Deepak Chopra?
Now on to some sections of India’s media…
Why didn’t we hear about the UPA-DMK 2G spectrum scam, India’s largest scandal, from any investigative journalist. It took Janata Party’s Harvard educated Subramania Swamy to intervene.
Sections of India’s media are certainly politically motivated and hence there cannot be FoE there.
e.g. NDTV – Prannoy Roy, related to Leftist extremist Suzanna Arundati Roy, and brother-in-law to Prakash Karat, head of the Communist Party. Do you disagree?
e.g. The Hindu – N.Ram, a known sympathiser of China.
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers34%5Cpaper3360.html
Also see this from the TOI.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/headon/entry/why-congress-fears-rss
“The strategy used by the Congress to “partner” sections of the media in villifying Anna’s campaign has already proved counter-productive. The newspapers, TV channels and senior editors who act as surrogate mouthpieces of the Congress have succeeded only in damaging their own reputations built over decades. That damage is irreparable.”
Now reason without emotion and we’ll continue the debate. Otherwise, I am wasting my time.
In reply to Matt
Matt, I’m astonished that you can imagine that I would have double standards for Digvijay Singh merely because he’s the spokesperson for the largest party in India. How is that even relevant?
Westerners who listen to Deepak Chopra etc tend to have a glamorous view of India as a land of elephants and snake charmers. Guys like him actually do a disservice to the country of their origin. People like the exotic after all.
Second, just because a newspaper leans towards a particular policy doesn’t mean there’s FoE. The TOI for example, allows bloggers airing views from all sides of the spectrum on their website. No view is suppressed. It may be openly liberal – they admit it – but there’s no evidence to show that they suppress other views.
Note that even if they did suppress them, they are private organizations not governmental. Just like this blog is my private space. If I moderate comments on my blog, no one can claim that their FoE has been violated because anyone can go start their own blog and write whatever they want on it.
Similarly, the media industry is a free market. If there are many people who truly feel that the current newspapers aren’t doing a good job, they can band together and start their own.
FoE doesn’t mean the right to say anything you want on someone else’s private space. It means you can say what you want in your space and allow others in. Or even say it in a public place without fear.
But like I said, this is irrelevant because no national newspaper censors the views of its bloggers or editorial staff regardless of its leanings. Every view is presented.
As for the Congress trying to partner with some sections of the media – the fact that their strategy failed should tell you something about the robustness of the Indian media.
Or at least it tells you the robustness of the indian people who have good political bullshit detectors despite being denied the freedom to education, good roads, reliable electricity, potable water…after nearly 60 years of Gandhi family maladministration and propaganda, to which some sections of the media have been a party to. I’d suggest that the great masses of india care more for those kinds of freedom over FoE.
The focus on good governance by the NDA is a step in the right direction but the UPA and Left controlled media will have none of that.
Anyway, I’m outta time.
Remember, you have got a great country.. It suffers from extremely poor leadership. If FoE can help address that, then good. But the media, by and large, does not play it’s role in keeping the politicians honest. It falls to people like the Harvard professor Subramania Swamy.
In reply to Matt
And so we finally come to it. I’ve thought for quite a while that there was some political angle to your posts – your references to Digvijay Singh, “liberals”, the “media” etc. and now you finally plug your favorite party.
In case you didn’t notice, my post is apolitical. I give a damn about which party is in power. And if you think there’s any real difference between the major parties in this country, then you’re being naive and simplistic.
Of course, there’s a political angle! Rights, freedoms, nationalism – the topic of this post IS a political topic.
FYI – I’ve never voted in an Indian election since I’m not eligible. I’m just praising the whistleblower. I praise the whistleblowers who sent the corrupt Karnataka CM to jail, too.
I love India, it’s a force for good in this world. As such, political participation by Indian citizens like you would be meet if you care about the direction of your country.
If you do exercise your franchise, I’d wager you vote Left since there’s a clear left-political angle to your posts. You see it in the selective criticism of the right-wing, and the defense of left-wing loonies like the Roys, and your insistence that the Indian media is a paragon of impartiality.
In reply to matt
1. I will defend anyone’s right to free speech. Not just the “left loonies.” That doesn’t make me prefer one political party to another.
2. I never claimed the Indian media was a paragon of impartiality. There are certainly problems, but there’s a big difference between it being imperfect and completely and hopelessly compromised as claimed by you.
3. The content of my post isn’t veered towards or against any political party. It has nothing to do with the BJP or the Congress.
where did “matt” say “completely and hopelessly compromised” ??? U r putting words in his mouth.
“matt” is always only referring to certain sections of the media, no? like ndtv, the hindu, hindustan times which are all pro-government. it is well known that congress is trying to partner the media, or silence it.
why dont u write about barkha dutt of ndtv trying to sue the bloggers? this is also against freedom of expression. should she and digvijay leave the country like you say? maybe digvijay should stay – he is such a comedy.
Liberalism fuels radical Islamism
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/50461-liberalism-fuels-radical-islamism.html
do u disagree with the british stance? do tell.
In reply to ANon
But I did write about Barkha Dutt’s silencing of bloggers and even said that was one of the important issues for me during elections – complete freedom of expression for bloggers.
Why do so many people feel that I support only one side of FoE while denying the other? As far as I know I’ve never said anything of the sort.
In most of Matt’s comments, he refers to the “media” in general – just take a look. And if the Congress is trying to silence the media, they’re doing a very poor job and it looks like we have nothing to fear.
What is England’s stance?
This post is totally outrageous.
“So once again. If you disagree with India’s way of functioning, I humbly ask you to leave my country and go wherever you want. I don’t care where you go. Just don’t remain here. Because if you remain in India, and don’t support freedom of expression, you’re a traitor to my land.”
Hah? your land? you dont have any feeling for your country then how dare you claim to be your land?
If some guy comes and tells you, i will rape your mom and all your sisters? you will smile and say freedom of speech or punch him on hid face?
This kind of post shows that you have no respect for the freedom fighters who gave their life for the country. Impotency has come into your mind body and soul.
People like you never say Jai Hind or stand in national anthem, nor do they have respect for their own religion. Your existence on earth is neither useful to the people, nor to yourself. You better kill yourself now and ask god to give you a better life next time.
“If some guy comes and tells you, i will rape your mom and all your sisters? you will smile and say freedom of speech or punch him on hid face?”
As long as there’s no real threat, I will definitely say “freedom of expression” and not interact with that person any more.
Perhaps you should know that our freedom fighters fought for…you know…freedom! Freedom of speech in this case.