Fangs of Free Speech

In his classic work "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill had made a strong cause for the need for freedom of speech and expression. Voltaire, one of the leading lights of the French Revolution, had famously said that even if he doesn't agree with someone on an issue, he'll defend until death the right of that person to express his/her opinion. Democracy, i.e., rule of the people, rests upon the freedom of expression of the citizens as one of its essential requisites. Why is there a need for the State to occasionally infringe upon the right of free speech? Shouldn't there be an absolute right to free speech? Let us examine these issues in detail, while making a particular recent instance—that triggered [yet again] a debate on the need for having an absolute right of free expression—the focal point of this essay.

The Makers of Modern India, i.e., the members of the Constituent Assembly gave the status of a Fundamental Right to the Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19). This means that an aggrieved individual, whose fundamental right of free speech and expression has been abrogated, can directly approach the Supreme Court of India under the Right to Constitutional Remedies (which itself has been made a fundamental right under Article 32). World over, free speech and expression have been kept as things paramount to the establishment of a democratic polity. It is on this very premise that China and Russia are criticized by the West for having subdued their citizens' rights through strict tools of media censorship. 'Je suis Charlie' and voices against Boko Haram focus on the need to give people the right to express themselves—be it through speech, literature, artistry or through education. Lead bullets are way too weaker than the conviction of numerous Malala Yousufzais, who have an aspiration to rise above the sheepish crowd by exercising their right of free speech.

The rise of social media has provided an entirely new pathway to those looking to express themselves and rise above the curtains of censorship. The small white 'f' in a blue background and the small blue bird—the respective logos of Facebook and Twitter—have become two of the numerous totems that connect 'netizens' all over the globe, many of whom aspire to cast away most of the taboos passed on through generations. While evincing great interest in the social media, there is also a need to keep at bay its ability to fan the fire of rumours and create mass congregations swiftly.

Even amongst clarion calls for imparting absolute freedoms of expression to the people, it should be noted that the wisdom of the framers of our constitution compelled them to subject the rights guaranteed under the Article 19 to "reasonable restrictions"—"public order", "decency", "morality" among the many restrictions explicitly mentioned. One might argue as to who is going to be the authority for defining the terms "decency" and "morality". A logical answer to this, keeping in mind the social contract theories, is the State in due deliberation with the civil society. Besides, this was the most that English language allowed the constitution makers to express themselves. No matter how objective one may aspire to be, there will always be a degree of subjectivity in the words of a statute.

There is a need for the State to exercise restraint while making use of provisions of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as was done in the case of two young girls in Maharashtra after one of them questioned the need for a curfew in Maharashtra after Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it on Facebook. Also, the crackdown on expression of political dissent by numerous Aseem Trivedis needs be curbed. At the same time, content developers have a responsibility towards the society. They should understand that opposition to certain works, which they might have developed with a bonafide intent, may not always be from a bunch of right-wing extremists looking out for cheap publicity by making loud proclamations of attempts of destruction of the Indian cultural fabric. The opposition could very well be a manifestation of the 'inertia of tradition'—the hegemonic presence of certain ideas in the society—to change which will take much more than impulsive outbursts of creativity.

Let us see why movies, videos and music are considered at a different pedestal in India (even by the watchful eyes of the State) as compared to other forms of mass media. It is quite comprehensible that content propagated through the auditory (or audio-visual) route is more effective in conveying information to the listeners (or viewers), as compared to that written in books or in the print media. This may also be because of certain constraints such as lack of literacy among the listeners/viewers. It should also be noted that much of the works of public intellectuals are present in English, and as the ASER 2014 reports narrate, the access to such works may be constrained by lack of adequate literary skills. Another factor may be the prohibitive costs of such works. On the other hand, movies are made in regional languages too. Regional issues are addressed by the movies made in the regional language and the propagation of national issues is taken care of by the swiftly growing system of creation of remakes of movies into other languages. Thus, certain movies or videos or songs have the capability to evoke an outrage among a certain section of the society. A case in point can be the movie Dam 999 which was perceived to be akin to one representing the Mullaperiyar Dam between Tamil Nadu and Kerala. And so, it can sometimes be justifiable to place a certain check on the screening of such movies if they are perceived to be non-conducive to public order. The need for a Censor Board can also be justified on the ground that it serves as an expert panel (whose members have enough experience) to determine what effects a movie can have on the audience and which parts should not be aired in theatres.

I now move to the topic of stand-up comedy. Mime and stand-up comedy are instruments that chiefly employ humour to achieve certain ends—to present political dissent, or to achieve social reform, or to reform an individual, or just to achieve humour as an end in itself. 'Roasting' is an idea that was born in the West. 'Roast' is considered opposite to a 'toast' (in which a person is honoured for a cause). In a 'Roast', certain comedians gather at a place to make mock-fun of certain individual(s) after having received their consent. This is intended in good humour, and the motive is to promote self-criticism and to entertain an audience. In the following portion, I'll move to the focal point of the essay—the controversy over the "AIB Knockout". My interest on this topic was greatly evinced after I read a lot about this in the print media in the past few weeks. One particularly compelling work over the controversy was Sanjay Hegde's article "The lawlessness of humour" in The Hindu dated 23 February 2015.

"AIB Knockout" perused Out-and-Out

According to the AIB team, the AIB Knockout episode was one meant to be viewed by a private audience. The proceeds of the programme went for a charitable cause. The organizers had obtained the consent of the parties involved. Further, any of their works is not intended to offend anyone but is rather a creative work intended to arouse humour. Additionally, they cited the number (~8 million) of 'hits' and 'views' of their YouTube video as something that signifies their popularity. Let us go for a step-by-step evaluation of their assertions.

First of all, as mentioned before, the concept of roasting has been taken from the West (from the US). Considering that the Indian society is still conservative at large, except for a section among the middle class and the rich which has got influenced by modernity (they can very well be assumed to be a coterie, if their percentage is calculated out of the population of India), holding such an event would have been a risky proposition due to pungent criticism as one of its fallouts. It could still have been considered acceptable (it would have remained in obscurity and would have only been discussed by the audience in their future conversations) had it not been openly shared by the AIB group (only to be removed later) on YouTube. The group might have posted disclaimers in the video itself. However, it is a common observation that people may not stop biting into the 'forbidden fruit' for the very simple logic—what harm may come from watching a video? Then, this very act of promotion of such content that is acceptable to only a small coterie of individuals raises questions on the use of "All India" in the title AIB of the group. This group can, in no way, be pan-Indian in character.

Next, let us examine the issue of 'hits' and 'views' on YouTube. The AIB team have themselves admitted that they rely on social media for hosting their content owing to a resource crunch. Social media works through a mechanism of peer review. And that is possible only when people watch the content. A large number of views does not necessarily mean that the people have approved of the content. Also, a substantial number of the 'views' may very well have been of NRIs. The problem with 'hits' and 'views' is that they do not count the 'views' based on an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the viewer (which is an address unique to the device on which the content is viewed). Thus, it is quite possible that a person may have viewed a video multiple times on the same device (this rests on the assumption that the person might have removed the history on his/her internet browser). It is also possible that the same person might have watched the video multiple times on different devices (say for showing it to someone else). Then, the 'likes' and 'dislikes' may not be an exact parameter for determining the general perception of the video among the society.

Further, the AIB team have themselves thanked the people for not having downloaded the whole video and for not having put it on a torrent website. Had they been more careful in their deeds earlier, they would not have to face the music later. Besides, a chickening on such an issue represents the lack of courage to stand by their work. Let me put an allegory as well. Putting that video on YouTube was akin to hosting a bacchanalian event in a small corner of a busy market place. Even though the participants might assert that they do not at all intend to outrage the modesty of the society, the event has to be censured and repressed by the Leviathan-like instruments of the State (read police) for having ample statistical evidence that such events have created social disorders in the past.

Then, the video contains not disguised but explicit sexually-coloured remarks, references to genitalia and vulgar language. Such a video should not have been shared on a social media platform. And merely classifying it as humorous doesn't help either. I issue a blatant, unequivocal, strenuous censure of this and I overtly say that it wasn't humorous at all. And let me add, for all those who will be quick to categorize and compartmentalize me [on the basis of my views] into preset fashionable categories, that I'm in no way affiliated to any right-wing fundamentalist organization. In fact, I am open in the condemnation of such groups whenever they commit any dastardly act.

And let me demolish the final pillar of their reasoning. It has been stated that the proceeds of the event went to charity. And the audience was entertained. Very well. In Ancient Rome, the game of gladiators used to be very famous. In the present day, would it be entertaining to watch a Maximus Decimus Meridius hack human beings to pieces in real life (even if the proceeds were to go to charity)? This would go against the Kantian maxim of treating each man as an end in itself and not using other humans as means to an end. People may say that there is a vast difference between physical violence and such a roasting event. Recall what the veteran Bollywood actor Aamir Khan has expressed (who is venerated in the society for his show Satyamev Jayate)—that violence need not always be physical and the AIB Knockout event was akin to 'verbal violence'.

Having analyzed all this and before concluding, let me present a case of psychoanalysis. What the so-called comedians of AIB Knockout have tried to do is to use the theory of 'cognitive dissonance' of psychology (which assumes that human beings have an inherent desire to remove any internal contradictions. The method used by these jugglers was to present a video which might create a doubt in the minds of the people about well-established norms of socially-acceptable behaviour. The rest of the work was done by the so-called proponents of free speech who are always on the lookout for any opportune moment to vent out their ire at right-wingers. Unfortunately, in this case too, the Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court by certain members of a Hindu right-wing affiliated group. This gave some merit to the supporters' views. Meanwhile, the AIB did succeed in achieving a lot of publicity through this controversy. If their aim was to initiate a process of a social engineering by acting as the harbingers of roasting in India at a grand level by roping-in Bollywood actors, it remains to be seen if they have achieved it or not.

As of now, in the interest of public order, such tendencies need to be curtailed in the near future (if not in the distant one). John Stuart Mill had also given a condition when free speech could be suppressed by the use of power—if this free speech had the effect of harming the society (referred to as the 'Harm Principle'). The same needs to be done in the abovementioned cases as well. The creative people also have a larger responsibility towards the society. They need to thoroughly assess the social realities and the likely outcomes of a creation before releasing it to the public. In this regard, it would be apt to keep hyper-liberals in check in the desire for a peaceful society. 'Free speech' is an utopia. To conclude, I quote Jean-Jacques Rousseau—man must "be forced to be free".

Do we need a 'God'?

"Religion was born when the first charlatan met the first fool on the earth."

—Voltaire

The Socratic method of dialectics works quite well when one strives to solve some conundrums that baffle one's mind. John Stuart Mill had emphasized on the need for freedom of speech and expression. The outcome of such a freedom in a civilized environment is dialectics—the method which leads one to the 'truth'. And what is 'truth'? There is almost nothing known as the 'absolute truth' or a 'universal truth'. Perhaps, one thing that is absolute is change. Otherwise, the 'universality' of an idea can contested on the very premise that the word 'universal' itself is an abstraction. The term 'universally established principles' is used for some discourses, which have been recognized and accepted by a large number of individuals or an influential body of individuals on this very planet Earth. In fact, man doesn't even know the exact expanse of the universe, for want of better technology. In such a scenario, it becomes highly questionable how the followers of a particular religion can so fanatically and zealously adhere to a particular set of beliefs as to exhibit elitism, a condescending attitude towards the followers of other religions and xenophobia.

I happened to ponder, yet again, over religion and such other related topics after I had numerous discussions with a number of friends—the utility of dialectics. I have also had the honour of reading an essay written by Bhagat Singh during the days he was incarcerated for breaking the laws (implemented by a handful of Englishmen who presumed that they were on a 'civilizing mission', and created by their counterparts lodged comfortably overseas while basking in the comforts of the home charges). His essay titled "Why I am an Atheist" has had a deep impact on my thoughts. I've also read "The Kingdom of God is within You" by Leo Tolstoy. Then, I had in front of me the examples of famous agnostics—Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Khushwant Singh, to name a few. Meanwhile critics cannot attack my views (which I'll present in the upcoming paragraphs) on the basis of the reasoning that I haven't gone through the works of great believers. I've read "The Story of My Experiments with Truth" (Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi). I realized that the synergy that Gandhi felt exists between morality and the existence of a God ('Ram' for him), i.e., a Supreme Soul, can very well be explained differently—without ascribing morality to an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient power which keeps a watchful eye over his creation. While countering immorality with deterrence through fear of otherwise attracting the wrath of a God may have a utilitarian value, to me it is a sign of lack of confidence in one's own abilities of bonafide judgment.

The Idea of 'God'

A friend of mine, who is studying to become a doctor, suggested to me that God must be there. If it weren't for him, the chaos in this world would be multiple times the present level. I felt that while he vociferously pressed on this point, it was a very knave thing to be averred. If there was a Supreme Being or a God, he wouldn't have allowed injustice in this world. The burning alive of a Jordanian pilot by the fighters of the Islamic State (who, interestingly, claim that their actions are based on their own interpretation of the Islamic religion) would have been prevented, had there been a God. If he didn't purposely prevent, is he a sadist? And if he couldn't, then he isn't Supreme. It is incomprehensible to me why certain individuals commit barbaric and heinous crimes in the name of this very God. Is that too part of the very script created by him?

The proponents of 'karma' can offer that the pilot might have received this treatment because of his actions in this life or the previous life. It is a fantastic belief and there is no conclusive evidence of it. While this metaphysical concept of birth cycles and rebirth is a very fancy explanation of certain phenomenon and I too do not contest (even if I do not personally subscribe to) this view, there seems to be no reason to adhere to another belief—the existence of a God who regulates and controls all the happenings in this world. This dual belief, to me, pulls one into the gossamer of beliefs and abstractions—for supporting which, no empirical evidence can be advanced.

My personal experience, so far, has been that the rhetoric of 'turning unbelievers into believers'—by the exhibition of miracles—is nothing but a figment of people's hyperactive imagination. A common man usually starts believing in something when some empirical evidence is presented to support a certain assertion. And this work of presentation of such evidences can very well be 'doctored' or 'engineered' to one's convenience. The fundamental basis of all this is the human mind's extraordinary capability to recognize patterns among ordinary occurrences. So, half the work of entrapment into this belief about the presence of a Divine is done by a person's own mind. The other half of the work involves the creation of an enabling environment—an aura or a Gramscian hegemony—which ascribes those 'miracles' to this 'Supreme Being'. My answer to all such 'converts' is that if one is so fickle as to start believing in a thing just because of lack of a better explanation for such 'miracles', one's previous conviction isn't strong enough. A 'miracle' is something that had been hitherto unseen and unheard of or unverified by some globally-recognized enlightened individuals. An absence of an explanation for such a phenomenon is no cogent reason to infer that a God has been behind such an act.

Religion—the pathway to 'God'

'Natural science' also works on certain assumptions, as has been pointed out by Thomas Kuhn. Thus, there is nothing absolute—for these assumptions are nothing but beliefs that simplification of problems would not deter us very much from the path of truth. In this context, I try to present the definition of 'religion' the way I perceive it.

'Religion' is a set of beliefs adhered to by a certain individual or a group of individuals to provide sails to their boat in this ocean called life. Religion, as a way of life, helps one to achieve nearness to 'God' by following a righteous path.

Inasmuch as religion is used to convey a meaning of a well-defined and collectively-accepted set of beliefs to lead a righteous life, I have no problem. Personally, even I adhere to certain principles of conduct and some people, if they feel the need for nomenclature, may call it my 'religion'. In this, I find the Shakespearean dictum—"What's in a name? That which you call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet"—an apt one.

What I am against, however, is commercialization of religion with a view to achieve vested interests and monetary gains. The very idea of ornament-clad stone idols "drinking" milk and honey (things which are a luxury, even while dreaming, to a substantial number of Indians) conveys to me a crystal-clear picture of a few charlatans' connivance with some selfish intelligentsia. In the past, I myself have witnessed unabashed displays of 'religion' and almost-extortion in the name of Gods—in Kalighat temple of Kolkata, in Vishwanath temple of Varanasi, in Mansa Devi temple of Haridwar, in the Dargah of 'Ghareeb Nawaz' in Ajmer, and many more. If a Bollywood movie by the name of "Oh My God" targets this facade of the godmen, I think it is a splendid use of the freedom of speech and expression to pull out the Indian society from the clutches of medieval dogma. What the tricksters cash in on is fear that is inherent among the people. And this fear has to be reinforced through establishment of the hegemony of ignorance. What's worse is that a certain section of the electronic media dedicates half-hour shows to create sensationalism and boost its TRPs. These half-hour shows have no dearth of religious pundits trying to tear the society by the fangs of medievalism.

Another aspect, which I would like to analyse, is religious chauvinism and fanaticism. Let me present my case systematically. It is said that religion is a pathway to a 'God'. Had there been different Gods, there would have been chaos as to who should have a supremacy over the creation (in my opinion, I exhibit an outright denial of any functional specialization ascribed to different Gods as propounded by the Hindu mythology). Thus, God can be a single power. And this should be true about all religions. Thus, in essence, all religions should lead to that 'God'. Continuing with this line of reasoning, all religions must agree on certain basic points. The question is—if all religions have the same goal and if they have many (if not all) common points, why is there a need to present the followers of certain religions as antagonistic to others? Xenophobia propagated by extremists signifies only one thing—the desire to achieve material gains and power by fanning mutual hatred through the use of jargon such as "love jihad". Such tendencies should be jettisoned from the fabric of a country that proclaims to have a secular polity.

Let me make an honest confession. I was born in a family, which has the 'Brahmin' social identity ascribed to it. While I still bear the same affection towards my family as most others would have towards theirs, I am in no way 'proud' of 'being a Brahmin'. In fact, I do not even care about which community I was born in. I believe that I, as a human being, am endowed with wisdom and I do not need to subscribe to preordained communities to life a harmonious life. While religious fanatics might hold Macaulay's education and "western ideas" responsible for my line of thinking, I am satisfied that atleast I do not treat others as means to an end; rather, I consider each person an end in himself/herself. And although I personally do not approve of Valentine's Day and the increasing craze about Valentine's Week in India in the recent years (all thanks to globalization), I do not consider it my right to resort to moral policing of others due to some misplaced notions about conservation of Hinduism and the "Hindu culture" loitering around in my head. What exacerbates the situation is the indulgence of certain religious-cum-political leaders, prophets, 'sadhus', 'sadhvis', 'maharajas', etc., in 'mazhab ki siyaasi dukaandaari' (political trade in the garb of religion). These godmen even intrude into the private sphere of families and individuals, e.g., their advices on how much children the women belonging to a certain religion must bear.

Can any religion sanction the killing of innocent people perceived to be 'unbelievers'? If it does, then I dare say that it better be thrown to the dogs. 'Boko Haram'—"western education is a sin"—is a brainchild of those aspiring to establish a kingdom based on the fundamental tenet of ignorance. And to enforce this ignorance, the use of terror is resorted to.

What is required is a thoughtful deconstruction of such tactics to understand the ulterior motives involved. At the same time, there is a need to positively channelize the energy of the youth in a society. The cocktail of dissatisfaction and romanticism may otherwise lead them to become the foot-soldiers of some pseudo-messiah, which will eventually be carcinogenic to the whole idea of India as a nation.