Censorship has a thousand fathers; free speech is an orphan. Not just an orphan, but one that is abused all the time. The level of abuse rose higher this month as a police complaint was filed against Samajwadi Party MLA Abu Asim Azmi over his remarks praising Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
Now, Aurangzeb was not a nice guy; he was a bigoted king who killed his brothers, imprisoned his father, and brutally treated Hindus; he also imposed the detested jaziya tax on non-Muslims. Lauding such a person is offensive not only to Hindus but also to Sikhs; he got their ninth Guru, Guru Teg Bahadur, executed. Yet, in a democracy, nobody should be prosecuted for holding views that are offensive to someone.
A liberal democracy should uphold the ‘harm principle’ instead. John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest champions of liberty, said that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
A travesty of the harm principle is the ‘offence principle’; it lowers the bar for imposing restrictions on freedom of expression; worse, it introduces ambiguous standards for the curtailment of liberty. It also leads us to the treacherous territory of ‘hurt sentiments.’ Harm is objective (physical, financial, etc.), whereas hurt sentiments and offended feelings are subjective. The law is, or ought to be, guided by objective realities, not felt subjectivities.
Ideally, hurt sentiments or religious feelings shouldn’t be the grounds for restricting free speech. Unfortunately, India (like Islamic nations) has anti-blasphemy laws. What is more unfortunate is that these draconian laws are being invoked indiscriminately. The Marine Drive police have reportedly charged Azmi with Sections 299, 302, and 356(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
But Section 299 says, “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
Azmi’s laudatory remarks on Aurangzeb are indeed deplorable, but how on earth any praise for a cruel emperor can outrage “the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India” or “insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class”?
The correct manner to cogently refute the false and misleading contentions of a book is not to burn or ban it but to write another book or publicly argue against it. Similarly, the correct way to trash Azmi’s twisted ideas is to expose them, not to prosecute him.
Police and administration entertain complaints against politicians, filmmakers, writers, etc., by claiming that their comments, movies, books, etc., can trigger riots or cause law and order problems. Given a chance, they would proscribe or severely curb any remark by any person on any subject, for anything can hurt sentiments or outrage religious feelings. The moral duty of the judiciary is to curtail the excesses of cops, not the freedom of expression of citizens and politicians. The judiciary must speak the language of reason and prudence.
As I wrote earlier, “Without the ballasts of rationality, poise, and gravity, sentiments behave like malfunctioning robots; fortuitous combinations of circuits make their working arbitrary and often dangerous. Unbridled sentimentalism occasions the basest human instincts, grossest emotions, and stupidest ideas; it promotes the proclivity to capitulate to the cantankerous and the intractable, and it inevitably results in politicians’ covenants with self-righteous charlatans and pious goons. All in the name of not hurting sentiments. The biggest casualty, of course, is the freedom of expression.” (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/tyranny-of-hurt-sentiments-padmavati-controversy-typifies-how-in-india-democracy-is-made-to-stand-on-its-head/)
The consequences are grave for politics, society, and culture. The area around the tomb of Aurangzeb, who died more than 300 years ago, has witnessed violence. There have been clashes in Nagpur’s Mahal area, resulting in injuries to over a dozen people, burning of cars, and stone-pelting.
The votaries of Hindutva are clamoring to erase Aurangzeb’s traces from history; in this endeavor, they are relying on the sentiments of Hindus. At present, the saffron brigade is in the ascendant, but times change; a different breed of political activists can also use the same sentimentalist and sanctimonious means to undermine Hindutva ideology. For example, some enterprising Odiya politician can launch a campaign against Biharis for the bloody conquest of Kalinga by the emperor Ashok more than two millennia ago.
Besides, the boot can be on the other foot. The champions of Hindutva should not lose sight of this reality.
If someone can be tried for admiring Aurangzeb, someone else can also be prosecuted for praising Ashok or any other king. That will deal another blow to free speech.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
