Political Diary

New Delhi, 9 April 2024

Man Our Netas Are Touchy!

HOW MANY WILL YOU PUT IN JAIL?

By Poonam I Kaushish 

One man’s food is another man’s poison. A succinct testimony to the ongoing maelstrom over growing intolerance for ‘perceived’ disparaging and derogatory speeches in ongoing poll mania. Resulting in nationwide churning. 

 “If before elections, we start putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on Youtube, imagine how many will be jailed?” Queried Supreme Court while restoring bail granted to a YouTuber accused of making derogatory remarks against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin and detained by Tamil Nadu Police in 2021. Emphatically asserting, “Everyone who makes allegations on social media cannot be put behind bars.” 

 “We do not think that by protesting and expressing views he can be said to have misused his liberty….” Court added while taking note of the FIR filed against him for participating in a protest opposing Babri Masjid’s demolition wherein he demanded release of some detained individuals. 

Last year a senior TDP leader was jailed for offensive comments against Andhra Pradesh Tourism Minister and is facing charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. Controversial Hindu leader Yati Narsinghanand was arrested in Haridwar for making odious and critical remarks against women 2022 but was granted bail by Uttarakhand High Court. 

In 2021 stand-up comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested and denied bail for “poking fun” at Hindu deities on claims made by a Hindutva vigilante group in Madhya Pradesh. Never mind, he hadn’t made any statement involving Hindu gods. Leaving it to Supreme Court which intervened and released him. In 2017, another comedian Tanmay Bhat was booked for tweeting a meme of Prime Minister Modi with a dog filter on Snapchat. 

And how can one forget a consumer goods giant which was forced to withdraw a Karwa Chauth advertisement celebrating progressive marriage view featuring a lesbian couple. Or a famous designer’s “obscene” Mangalsutra billboard which portrayed a woman wearing a low-neckline dress posing intimately with a man. Big deal if it aimed to talk about empowerment.  

A clothing brand was accused of “defacing” Diwali by naming its festive collection Jashn-e-Riwaaz. A jewellery brand was forced to discontinue a commercial which showed a baby shower organised by Muslim in-laws for their Hindu bride. Predictably, some BJP MPs, Bajrang Dal and Yuva Morcha called these “insults to Hindu culture. 

Alas, we have been through seasons of intolerance whereby any film, book or artwork which pokes fun or is not in sync with our leaders thinking, cause and outlook is not only banned, vandalized and the offender arrested. Whereby, space for liberal discussion is becoming narrower shown by repeated incidents of threats, lynching and banning by self-appointed censors. 

Questionably, is India in an era of political intolerance? Have we lost the ability to accept criticism? Bordering on a narcissist phobia? Is it mere coincidence or a sign of an increasingly knee-jerk, reactionary country where one is forced to go public about a frown, removal from job or punishment? 

Is the polity afraid of clash of ideas in public life? Is Government, Centre or State crushing free expression, suppressing dissent? Are we so paranoid or intolerant that any outpouring is viewed as a threat? Underscoring the narrow-minded climate of political discourse we live in. 

Obversely, does criticism of Government or leader connotate putting a person behind bars? Is this a Government’s way of teaching us a lesson in rashtra prem and desh bhakti? Do we want to produce robots who only act at the command of what their leaders and chela thinkers, benefactors and wealth creators’ desire? 

Either way, India is in the grip of self-styled chauvinism wherein critics, intellectuals or hoi polloi are soft targets with imprudent reactions taking over debates and calibrated decisions.  Life is lived in the slim strip called official and every tweet, satire or defiance treated as a monster. Big deal if this makes public discourse impoverished and toothless. 

As blinkered, dogma-ridden debates rage on it marks a dangerous political trend of intolerance vis-à-vis freedom of expression and personal choices. If this trend goes unchecked society will get dangerously dogmatic and fragmented. Think. As India marches ahead, enroute to being Atmanirbhar our leaders need to realize in a mammoth one billion plus country there would be a billion views and one is free not accepting views of others as it is a matter of perception. A statement objectionable to a person might be normal to another. cannot curtail people’s fundamental rights. At the same time we need to desist from acerbic and speeches which spew hatred and narrow-mindedness.

Clearly, one cannot curtail people’s fundamental rights. So do we pander to rabble rousers or muzzle their voices? No. Notably, no licence should be given to anyone to spread hatred or the perilous implications of their insidious out-pourings. They need to realise a nation is primarily a fusion of minds and hearts and secondarily a geographical entity.

Besides, courts safeguard this right whereby citizens enjoy fundamental right to have different opinions, criticize Government actions and express disagreement with judicial pronouncements. The aim should be to raise the bar on public discourse, not lower it any more than has been done. 

Alongside, our netas need to realize criticism is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy. Take a lesson from leaders world-wide who are more tolerant about what’s written or depicted about them. Two classic examples of political freedom are former US President Trump who continues to be mercilessly satirized globally and ex-Italian millionaire-playboy-PM Berlusconi. In UK and France people take a lot of liberties vis-à-vis their rulers.

Undoubtedly, when taking a final call Government and Court should keep in mind that procedural safeguards almost never work in a country where the prosecutorial proclivity to arrest overrides all else. An example: Police used Section 66A of the IT Act long after it was scrapped. Moreover, conviction rates languish in single digit underlining the scant evidence that underpins such charges.

Additionally, the Apex Court’s thrust on liberty and individual freedoms as guaranteed by Article 19. Certainly, the State must be able to defend itself for what it considers derogatory and offensive but such action should never come at the cost of Constitutional rights.

Remember, democracy is not just a system of Government, it is a way in which evolved and civilised societies organise themselves; within which people live and interact with one another; based on the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. And criticism is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy. 

At some point we need to realize that coercion has a thousand fathers, while liberty is an orphan. As George Orwell said, if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Hence, India could do without netas who distort politics and in turn destroy democracy and laughter. 

India was conceived as a democratic rather than majoritarian country wherein all citizens have certain basic rights. When it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our Constitutional scheme. Our democracy will not sustain if we can’t guarantee freedom of speech and expression. What gives? ----- INFA,

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)