It’s obvious that the charges of sedition against Aseem Trivedi cannot stand. If anything, he loves the country too much – not too little. Only someone who is emotionally invested in a nation will take such pains to consistently spread the word about what’s wrong with it. No – it’s pretty damn obvious that sedition is not the problem here. Even Binayak Sen was granted bail and the courts are pretty strict about the specifics of sedition.
The real charge facing Trivedi is for “disrespect to national symbols”. He showed the Ashoka chakra with wolves instead of lions, showed the parliament as a toilet and Ajmal Kasab peeing on the Constitution. We’ve all been taught in civics classes that we must “respect” the flag and other national symbols. But is this good? In my opinion, these stupid laws need to go as well.
How can you mandate respect? Can you create a law saying “Respect this!” And how do you enforce it? Look at the following list of actions and tell me which you think is illegal:
- I merely think to myself “I disrespect the flag” – legal or illegal?
- I merely think of something bad like peeing on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I tell someone I disrespect the flag – legal or illegal?
- I tell someone I want to pee on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I write that I want to pee on the flag – legal or illegal?
- I draw myself peeing on the flag – legal or illegal?
Can merely thinking something be a crime? If so, then we’re all screwed. No – a mere thought cannot constitute a crime. But that is exactly what the law makes it! “Respect” and “Disrespect” are thoughts. You can’t criminalize a person’s thoughts and emotions. And if you’re thinking something, it’s natural that you say it. Words are only an expression of what you feel. And writing is merely words on paper. Cartoons are just thoughts laid down in ink.
All of these are victim-less actions. No one is hurt, no one’s freedoms are being taken away. In my opinion, every law should ask the question – does this protect anyone? Will some specific person’s life become better because of this? Sedition laws and rules preventing the “disrespect” of national symbols fail this test. I don’t care if someone does something to the Indian flag. How is my life affected?
Thought crimes are the worst kind of laws. And expression is merely thought being manifested in the real world via books, paintings or speech. All of these should be protected because if you don’t allow them, you have to ask – is thinking about them illegal too? Imagine that the government had a monitoring device for your thoughts and it could prove that such and such an idea came from you. Can you think of the kind of laws it would create? *shudder*
Sedition laws need to go. Laws regarding national symbols need to go. They don’t make anyone’s life better and are insufferable violations of the Freedom of Expression guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
If a person is Nationalistic then disrespect to the flag WILL hurt him. It will actually HURT him. He will feel HURT.
Suppose someone peed on my photograph would you feel nothing at all ? Well i concede that you might feel nothing at all, but a child who loves his mother greatly WILL feel HURT if someone peed on her photograph . Its as simple as that.
If someone desecrates that which is dear to you then you do feel hurt. That something might even be an idea.
In reply to tp
That’s ok. I’m not saying no one should feel hurt. I’m saying that they person should not be forcibly stopped or put in jail.
In reply to tp
But it is not your photograph I am peeing on. I buy my own photo frame that just looks like your photo frame, download a publicly available photograph of yours that does not violate any rights and then frame it. I then pee on that frame. Why is that a crime.
I agree that if you stepped into red fort and pee’ed on the flag hoisted there, you can be charged with destruction of public property. Not if it is a flag you bought with your own money.
You write “All of these are victim-less actions. No one is hurt, ”
If someone peed on my photograph and you felt hurt i agree that they should not be put in jail. But its different with a National Symbol which does not represent an individual sentiment. It represents a whole Nation; in theis case the sentiments of over a billions Indians. People DIE to protect their country and what it stands for. A National Symbol represents that sentiment. There might even be laws in our Constitution that condemn desecration to the Nation’s Symbols – i dont know for sure
In reply to tp
“People DIE to protect their country and what it stands for.”
Yes. And what does India stand for? What makes India different from China and Pakistan – our neighbors?
Answer: Freedom. People (I included) will die to protect freedom. And in this case, the freedom to write/paint whatever you want without restrictions.
In reply to bhagwad
Love this response Bhagwad… //Freedom. People (I included) will die to protect freedom. And in this case, the freedom to write/paint whatever you want without restrictions.//
That there is even such a thing as a National symbol is more idiotic and insulting than any form of desecrating it.Indeed they should NEVER be enforced in the first place,at least not on people who value freedom.
In reply to Marl Karx
Agreed. All this patriotic nonsense is just to fool people into respecting arbitrary national borders.
Fact is that THERE IS a National Symbol, that has National sentiment attached to it. Whether it is idiotic or insulting can be another topic of debate.
In reply to tp
Just because there is a national symbol doesn’t meant that it can’t be desecrated by individuals who have bought it legally.
i agree that it is impossible to FORCE someone to respect National Symbols. Like one cannot force someone to respect your mother ( why should they ? ). But to desecrate them is entirely another matter for it hurts sentiment and that leads to violence because not everyone is non violent – face facts. We do not live in an ideal world. If we did we would not require laws. Desecrating ANYTHING verbally or physically is an act of violence in itself. As you rightly observed thought expresses itself by word and it is then followed by deed.
That is why Jesus said ‘ ye have heard it said, do not kill; but I say unto you that even if you are angry you have already killed ” As humans evolve so do they understand deeper truths.
In reply to tp
The fact exists that there are real countries in this world where desecrating national symbols is not a crime and nothing happens. People in the US burn their own flags, wear them as underwear and nothing happens. The US is also not an “ideal” country. But people know that offense is something you have to put up with in a free country.
How can you assume that everyone will be offended? Not everyone is so sensitive. And the main question remains. If it offends them, no one is asking them to do it or even watch. Why can’t they just close their eyes and be happy?
So, are you trying to suggest that late M. F. Hussain was right to draw the pictures which he did of religious figures ? Or are you fine with the film-maker whose film resulted in the killing of the American diplomat in Libya ? Of course both of them had their right to freedom of speech/expression.
Just because their expressing their thoughts wouldn’t affect many people, but there would be many who would get offended.
Of course no one can be forced to respect another person or symbol, religious or political, BUT no one has the right to disrespect anyone or anything that is respected by others.
You say that thoughts cannot be policed. Of course they cannot be. But when someone purposefully propagates his thoughts to others is when it becomes a problem. No one who gets offended by an expression of thoughts goes to see or hear it. It is offensive when it appears to a person while being circulated.
For a small example, I am a great fan of Sachin Tendulkar. So, whenever I come across an article or comment that disrespects him (yes, there are actually people who do that too) I feel offended. Of course I ignore it as soon as I understand the intent of the article within a few lines. But I cannot ignore anything even before reading/seeing or hearing it. Can I ? Can someone ? And of course I don’t go out to murder the person who has offended me, but still it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It hurts me emotionally (even if for just a few seconds). That doesn’t mean people don’t get hurt. If you consider physical hurt as the only criterion, then I guess you are mistaken.
Of course I don’t care what the cartoonist in question has drawn. I don’t intend to even take a look to find out. But what if one of my friends posts the cartoons on my Facebook wall ? Would I be sure that my mind wouldn’t react negatively to it ? Being a doctor, I can assure you that any human with no disorder or disease of a certain part of the brain can avoid assesment and emotional reaction to something he comes across. How he reacts physically to it is under his control. But emotions are usually involuntary.
All I mean to say is that your views could have been valid if only the world was homogenous regarding people’s mindsets and their power to control their reactions to things which offended them. But it is not so.
My comment, being contradictory to your views, might not be very likeable to you after reading it. But I wonder if you could have known it to be so even before reading it. :-)
“So, are you trying to suggest that late M. F. Hussain was right to draw the pictures which he did of religious figures ?”
I have very openly stated my support for MF Hussain in the past: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2010/rights-and-freedoms/why-are-we-angry-with-m-f-husain.html/
Whatever he drew is also protected by freedom of expression.
As for being hurt, I never said that people should not be hurt. I’m saying that in a free country, people have to put up with being hurt and can’t do anything about it. They can protest non violently or argue verbally or in print. But they can’t put the person in jail or act violently.
Freedom of expression is far more important than anyone’s feelings.
“BUT no one has the right to disrespect anyone or anything that is respected by others.”
This is certainly not true. As an atheist, I disrespect every god who is worshiped. Is that illegal? No.
People in our country are very emotional and get hurt easily. Just like children. It will take some more time for people to grow up and take charge of their own emotions.
Right now, people in India do not have control over their emotions. Once they spend time trying to find “peace”, then they will become more in control. Maybe the government should start a mandatory program of “meditation” and exercise to ensure that the good citizens are fully in control of their own emotions?
In reply to Name
If you treat people like children, they will behave like children. If you treat them as adults, they will grow up. No other developed country had to create programs to make it’s people become mature. Why should India?
The solution is to just start treating people like adults and expecting them to react. After a short time, everyone will automatically grow up.
I’m amazed at your concept of a ‘free country’. But first, I’ll reply to your take on the M. F. Hussain issue. You say, “Whatever he drew is also protected by freedom of expression.” But was he protected in his own country ? Wasn’t he chased out ? I should rather say that the law enforcement agencies of the country couldn’t protect him. And neither could the law protect the American diplomat who was killed in Libya. But it just shows that freedom of expression can hurt people. Even physically and fatally.
And you say that “in a free country, people have to put up with being hurt and can’t do anything about it.” So, do you mean that people have to put up with being shot by terrorists or being blown up by bombs ? Of course the terrorists also should have the freedom of expression. If you think it doesn’t apply to terrorists just because they belong to other countries, you must accept the fact that there are many Indians who indulge in such activities. Are maoists foreigners ? Aren’t the maoists exercising their freedom of expression too ? But as you say, one shouldn’t act violently.
If you consider being hurt only relates to physical hurt, then that is your personal opinion. Violence can be both physical and mental. Many of the people being driven to suicide are not even touched by those who drive them to kill themselves. Is that not violence ? And sometimes, mental/emotional violence can be more torturous than physical violence.
Suppose a person A stands in front of the house of person B and starts shouting abuses to person B’s parents. Or rather, person A stands there quietly with a derogatory poster of person B’s parents. So should he be allowed to do so just because he has his freedom of expression ? If we accept your views that anything can be allowed as long as it is not violent, do you think putting up morphed derogatory pictures of individuals (specially females) on the internet is fine ? Should not the person doing so be punished ? Or do you say it’s a part of a ‘free country’ and people can’t do anything about it ?
In one of your previous comments, you said “If it offends them, no one is asking them to do it or even watch. Why can’t they just close their eyes and be happy?”. I wish to be enlightened about how you expect someone to close their eyes to something they don’t even know exists. One will close his eyes only when he sees something bad. But isn’t the damage done already ?
As much as your views are idealistic, and I wish too that it could be that way, but you cannot close your eyes to the reality that people are different. There are numerous individuals out there who would react violently to a situation. It is just how they have been conditioned. There are fanatics and lunatics in every society, and you just can’t Shift+Delete them.
I personally do not agree with how every religion is practiced in the present times. And I disagree with many rituals of them too, including the portrayal of God in every religion. I question the logic behind many practices on my blog too. But that doesn’t mean I’ll disrespect a God, religion or the people who follow them. I realize the presence of many fanatics who may endanger the lives of many innocent people related or not related to me because of my actions which otherwise are within my right to expression.
It is your personal choice to be an atheist. And people should accept your choice even if they disagree with you. But there is a huge difference between non-belief/disagreement and disrespect. You will probably understand this difference when you grow up.
A free country should be one which allows disagreement without being disrespectful. That is my view which I guess you won’t agree to. But as much as I’m happy to disagree with you, I’m equally happy if you disagree with me. But disagreement is NOT synonymous with disrespect.
Lastly, I don’t expect you to either agree or accept my views. Specially because it will then cause your post to lose it’s relevance. And I don’t intend to do that. But our mutual disagreement should be enough to underline the essense if a free country. Disrespect is neither needed nor accepted to be a part of freedom of expression.
In reply to Shobhit
As long as no violence is used, all speech is ok. When I said “hurt”, I was only talking about emotions. Violence is always a no no.
“But it just shows that freedom of expression can hurt people.”
No – those who raise their fists and burn stuff hurt people. Words themselves cannot make a person’s head crack.
“Violence can be both physical and mental.”
You can always ignore mental violence by walking away, closing a website, not reading a book or not purchasing a painting. In a free society, it’s ridiculously easy to press the “back” button on the browser and remove the “mental torture”.
But you can’t walk away from physical violence. You can’t ignore it. That is why the word “violence” only applies to physical violence. Because it takes away choice from the victim.
“One will close his eyes only when he sees something bad. But isn’t the damage done already ?”
No – humans are not so weak that they see something and their brains go “boom!”
“Suppose a person A stands in front of the house of person B and starts shouting abuses to person B’s parents.”
If the parents themselves have no problem, who is A to get upset? He doesn’t own his parents or their image. If someone abuses my wife, that’s her problem to deal with. Not mine. How can one adult take offence on behalf of another? Ridiculous.
Your examples of morphed pictures means there’s a specific real person. Keep in mind that gods are not real people. They don’t have rights like human beings. Moreover, gods can protect themselves: http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2012/rights-and-freedoms/gods-can-protect-themselves.html/
“You will probably understand this difference when you grow up.”
I’m 30 years old. How much more “grown up” is enough for you? :D
“A free country should be one which allows disagreement without being disrespectful.”
And everyone one feels disrespected by something. I could easily have been offended by your earlier comment that I should “grow up”. Is that not disrespectful? Does that mean I have the right to put you in jail? But I’m an adult and nothing you say can make me lose control. That’s how it should be. We’re humans not animals.
Actually, even dogs know how to keep their instincts in check if there are consequences. And that’s the real problem. All these protesters are not afraid of punishment. Punish people for their actions and see how peaceful things become.
Freedom of speech means nothing unless you can offend people.
I was expecting these very points from you. :-) You seem to contradict your own statements.
You say that “humans are not so weak that they see something and their brains go “boom!””. Of course I didn’t say it would go boom. But yes, they do get offended. Just like my comment of growing up seemed to offend you. But the truth is, something may be offensive to someone while not to others. That doesn’t mean we don’t think before expressing something.
About the grown up comment, I was going to add in brackets that (I don’t mean about your age in numbers). But I deliberately omitted the brackets in my initial comment to see if you find if offensive or disrespectful. :-) And it seems you did. I didn’t mean about your age when I commented about you growing up. I’ve seen even 60 year olds needing to ‘grow up’ while I’ve also seen some 15 year old ‘grown ups’. I wrote it in the context of your comment to someone else where you said, “If you treat them as adults, they will grow up”. Though, my sincere apologies for deliberately using the ‘grow up’ comment for you. :-)
As about the example of morphed pictures, I never brought Gods into it. Why you pointed out that Gods can protect themselves is beyond me. My example just showed how the freedom of expression cannot be absolute. And your referring to Gods seems to suggest that when it’s the case of real people, the freedom of expression can be misused.
And after reading your last line where you say, “Freedom of speech means nothing unless you can offend people.”, I don’t have anything else to say. I must admit you have me at a loss there. :-) So allow me to take back all I tried to convey through my comments.
All the best to you. :-)
In reply to Shobhit
“But the truth is, something may be offensive to someone while not to others.”
That is why having laws banning offense are retarded and arbitrary.
Of course, growing up can be taken both ways. It seems to be that when you become a little wiser and take more responsibility for your actions, we can talk on an equal footing. Another example of perceptions.
If you can’t offend other people, then all discourse will be nice and sugary. And no matter how polite you are, if I say “God does not exist”, there are people who will take offence. So the only speech permitted will be boring platitudes.
Offending other people and mocking them is at the heart of freedom of expression. Without the right to do that we can’t claim to have it.