Free speech, censorship, and the fanatical reactions – during last few years, these co-related issues have been spread quite aggressively by the interested junta over the entire country and even the whole word, in general. There are mainly three parties involved, to be precise, which have shown a great deal of enthusiasm. First, who gave the spark for this issue by the self-generated customized exaggerations, by the name of free speech, liberty, art, literature, awareness, objectivism, and so on. Second party broadly dealt with all such people and organizations who have supposedly (self-acclaimed) got the responsibility to preserve the purity, integrity, conservancy, and righteousness of some philosophy, belief, tradition, and religion which have never had given proprietorship and caretaking rights to anyone. Third party has always constituted significantly those people from elite, intellectual, laureate, and distinguished classes who show middle-fingered attitude for all other issues except those which coherently don’t need their intervention. The core stuff, which keep all three parties rotating on the virtual orbit fanatically one after another, nevertheless wonders and feels pity about its existence precisely because it doesn’t require involvement of any of them.
Nude paintings of Hindu goddesses by Madhuri Fida Hussein, Calling “Allah” names by Ms. Nasreen, exclusive comments of Karunanidhi over Lord Ram, and so on. These free expressions get followed by the so-called saviour authorities (read, morons) in no time and then, the game starts with several reactions, like violence, riots, fatwas, multidimensional shouting, banning, eliminations, exiles, moral policing, and so many other things. The great India debate, then, gets initiated by media, gurus, religious bigots, politically baptized intellectuals, elite class, and other socially charged people. Some support free speech, some religious interests. Some refutes some; others attack this, rest cry out for the sake of god-knows-what. “Aam junta” get irritated by this cliché and find nothing quite interesting in all this melodrama which further leads to the wastage of all the efforts put by all three parties. This is not the ignorance of general public, rather this is such obvious that even Manmohan Desaai would have discontinued iterating his formulas by this utter obviousness. The continuous cyclic process of sudden rise and sudden fall, however, don’t affect these bigots because the centuries of dependency has made India full of idle juntas, bigots, morons, and Karats. This is still okay, but boss why are you disturbing the life of common men and daily chores of the nation? Will they ever stop with this? Gibberish is gibberish just like “A is A”, doesn’t matter whatsoever way you use, duh!
I strongly support free speech, freedom of expression, right to speak as a fundamental right, and all such related stuffs. I would appreciate every step that is taken for the advancement of the liberty of the man and the mankind. What else a man can give to the mankind but the growth and to make the earth a better place to live? What is the essence of the existence of a living entity if it is not free? This has to make an axiom, a rule, and a fundamental right – a right of man to be free, beyond any boundaries and not captured by any limitations. A man is free to believe in anything and a man is free to refute to be controlled by any belief. A man is free without violating another man’s right to be free.
Friedrich Nietzsche has mockingly described man into his book Thus Spake Zarathustra and that sarcasm is very much relevant while understanding the essence of man’s existence. He writes:
Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman–a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.
Man is surely not a rope if a man celebrates its existence and the reasons behind it. A man celebrates it because the existence has a ration and its sheer joy explicitly ejaculates the joy to be free.
The right of freedom for a man also gives him a duty to make sure that this right is not being violated by his free acts and every man is celebrating with joy that he’s free. The natural law identifies the condition that a man has to be alive to get the privilege of being free and the social law identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will. And this has to be rephrased every time the man synchronizes its existence with the nature and the society. The “liberty” will be a most accurate word here which perpetuates this right. Liberty is a rational approach to attain freedom for an individual yet retaining freedom for every individual.
When the individual freedom decides to connect to the collective freedom, it should be weighed with the fundamental rights of the (collective) liberty! And when it crosses the gate, it needs to be verified and that is not the censoring, rather the regulation and moderation. This regulation ensures that all individuals are attaining this right freely and equally. That is why a man is not a bridge – neither for a superman nor for a man himself.
We are individuals and we have attained some fundamental rights, one of them is the right of freedom. We live in a collective society and the society, as an entity, also holds some individual rights. Hence, we ought to take care of some duties and responsibilities. Social imaginaries and beliefs are deeply rooted in the society. If you say you don’t care about the collective entities, such as the society, then your imaginary and consequences of your free ideas also shouldn’t be reflected to the society. Keep the society unaffected! But if you don’t want this and you let your ideas be floated free in the environment for whosoever picks it, the social imaginaries get connected with your ideas at that very time. And at that time, you get plugged onto the duties and collective responsibilities. If you know about the freedom, you also know the ranges and limitations of your free ideas. Freedom is a concept and a concept always holds some fundamental ideas that are meant to serve the collective liberty. Ever heard of liberty, by the by? Bah!
I am no way supporting or defending, either, any of the three parties. But I get pissed off up and again, every time this nonsense screws up the common man’s right of freedom. And I feel like throwing out the first two parties from the earth sooner than later, even out of the gravitational circumference. These two parties constitute one, who inaugurates the free speech show and another, who cries out loud for the violation for its bleh freedom and henceforth celebrates its freedom by sucking out freedom of much many citizens. The irritation gets just increased when all three parties declare their leadership and authorizing responsibilities, whereas the matter of fact is that all of them are simply the morons-in-disguise.
I mean, who gave you freedom to keep abusing people and keeping the police busy with those who got abused? I mean, why we need law and order when somewhere we are the reason behind breaking the peace. Ideas of “liberty” should also be considered, for sake of itself. Freedom of speech is okay, but when that speech is not bringing any positive/progressive thing as a return and you already know that it will have adverse effects, then those speeches should be avoided and at least, should not be justified by the plea of freedom of speech. If you only need to get rid of the frustration inside you, please do it in isolation and bless everyone else. That’s why I prefer rationality, it bloody solves every problem. Take a rational approach and enjoy freedom of speech!
I am not defending those who are against this. And all of recent examples were not equal to those early transformers who had to go against traditional beliefs, ideologies, and societies. Suppose, I quoted “Allah” a moron, what difference did I bring to me or the surrounding or the society? What kind of significant change did I initiate by saying this? I don’t support this kind of free speech which is not based on rational values and which could be synonymous to irrational statement (sort of abuse which could have been avoided) just for the sake for personal bias, self-satisfaction, and free speech. Drawing nude paintings of goddesses or abusing gods – how rational is this? Didn’t they know that it can bring so much of conundrum and tension to the society? I am asking the same question here – Why do people speak, speak up or speak out?
What is more important – free to speak anything or social peace and harmony ? The freedom which can be irrational as well and when A knows that B will beat him up when abused. Its very much okay that Tasleema wants to put her experiences or stuffs about the part of her life when she suffered from Islam. She should, she must! But why abuse Prophet or Islam? Isn’t she generalizing the largest picture in consideration where she actually had to pick that part which was reason behind her suffering? Is this freedom is justified when it is already clear that it is destined to disturb the peace? Whether Ram or setu existed or not, it was the issue related to that bridge (setu). What was the need to comment on Ram and someone’s faith? Should freedom of speech come at the cost of the peace? Shouldn’t Karunadhi have proposed to investigate the truth behind the bridge et al by the help of archeology, history, or geology? Why did the mythology come in the picture, that too, from the person who had to be concerned with the justified solution, rather than being skeptic, biased, or so. Or MF Hussain is perfectly okay with the nude paintings of Hindu goddesses? Or is Mr Raj Thakarey justified by saying “there is a need to throw out north Indians from Maharashtra by pulling their ears”? These all are demonstration of the right to speech. The bottom line is – Speak anything or peace and harmony?
Okay, we accept that our society has mistakenly nurtured some retards. But who gave these moronic organizations and religious bigots the authority and responsibility to start mental asylum saloons and procurement centers! A philosophy, belief, tradition, or a religion decides its righteousness by its own existence and they are not fragile enough that they ever need to assign proprietorship and caretaking rights to anybody else. You gotta believe or believe not, but thy can never decide its range, righteousness, integrity, and all such things. And yes, ya all religious and political idiots, don’t poke your stiff heads for its conservancy and mind your own business, conservancy, and stuffs! Who the hell are you to decide that which thing offends me?
Religions are not so weak that they need somebody else to be assigned exclusively to protect it or whatsoever; rather they are tolerant enough to forgive all these idiotic stuffs. Neither Tasleema nor Bukhari is authority on Islam. Everybody knows that, including those who initiate such issues and transform them into a drama. Basically we all know that they are the politicians and all these drama is precisely politically baptized. There is one very important thing that Indian politicians learned from British Raj – Divide and rule. Politicians have divided the society on several things – religion, caste, region, culture, language, economy, and so on. And this is the only reason behind all the drama and violence happened in the country during last 6 decades. For the historical and contemporary references, refer to chapter#6 (Our culture, their culture) of The Argumentative Indian, Amartya Sen has elaborated it further here.
Why should Tasleema Nasrin exist? Why should Bukhari/Togadia and all these bloody politicians? Why this type of media? They all are the reason behind this fiery and warfare. Collective approach, which has got a root in general public and the public has always appreciated it, is not understandable by these social messiahs. And more than that, the high-time hypocrisy of Indian politicians take all the bites all the time.
That’s why my dear ignoranus and elite fellas, the authorities are recruited to moderate all such things and the laws have been built to enable moderation of irresponsible showdown of speeches and the pro-active reactions of bigots and morons. This is another topic that who will decide the limits and how rational it has to be. But, moral policing is a different thing and the authorities (which are somehow recruited by the public itself) are not supposed to decide it by their own will. Sometimes it happens, but well, there are some flaws of democracy and it also needs some change, but that is an off-topic. We all rational Indians know that who are irrationals, fanatics, and lunatics. We all will be agreeing that political, religious or regional fanatics need the maximum possible regulations. And this thing can be achieved by the people only, who recruit the right authority by using democracy, law, et al. Those people who are sitting in one chamber and deciding on behalf of us are chosen by us, they are given the authority by us. But here, every idle intellectual mind think that they are better intellect than those fellows, only that they chose not to become a Bureaucrat. And that’s what every fanatic and abuser of the right to freedom think and that’s why these kinds of drama occur in the society. Neither Tasleemas stop abusing Allah nor Imaams stop declaring Fatwas. Neither Hussains stop drawing nude paintings of goddesses nor BHPs stop creating warfare in the society. And each of them thinks that they are better than authorities and since authorities are moron and not taking the corrective actions so they are entitled to this. And this gets continues
I am a very big supporter of free speech and believe that no limitations exist for rational individuals, mind it – rational individual. But I am no way a supporter of these kinds of free speech. I believe that laws should exist and someone (maybe I if I become someday entitled) has to regulate this and make sure that it is being maintained and rest of the people help those who are taking care of laws, liberty, collective rights and peace, and so on. I have several ways to express myself and use my right to free speech and most of those ways will not be violating collective liberty and the peace. I also bloody know that what offends me, ain’t I? I have enough minds to think and decide that which thing hampers my beliefs and the symbols and I can no way let other decide it for me. I am a Hindu because of Vedas, Geeta, Hinduism ideologies, Hindu Gods, and my religious heritage; not because of the RSS, VHP, et al. Thy have no relation to validate, authorize, or protect my, or for that matter every Hindu, decision. My neighbor is Islam because of Prophet and philosophies of Islam and he just doesn’t care about all the Imams and Maulanas. We can take care of it, you stay away!
Images Courtesy: cooperativeindividualism.org, trosch.org, liberty-news.com