For so many weeks I had been thinking of writing on a number of issues, but my laziness (primarily) and preoccupation with writing Faking News articles stopped me from writing another article since I wrote my first one almost five months back! Not that someone out there missed my writings and thoughts desperately, but if I call it a ‘blog’ I should treat it as one.
I thought of writing this article after I was approached by a national news channel to participate in a chat show on “freedom of speech”, where I was supposed to represent a party whose freedom of speech (the fake news reports) had the potential of “hurting sentiments” of others. Unfortunately the shooting for the show was to happen in Mumbai and I was not in a position to travel out of Delhi at that time and hence I missed the debate, but it surely made me think aloud over the issue.
The trigger of the debate (chat show) was Pakistan banning facebook, primarily due to a page titled “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”, which they thought was offensive to Muslims and should have been deleted by facebook administrators. Even I had received a couple of nasty mails/tweets/comments after I made a joke on Pakistan’s knee-jerk reaction of banning facebook, and I knew that the issue of freedom of speech and expression was pretty relevant to me.
Recently, the issue of freedom of speech was again in center after an article published in TIME magazine was deemed offensive by many Indians, following which the magazine and the author appended their responses at the end of the article, both expressing ‘regret’ at having hurt people’s sentiments.
That has led some people to ask if TIME or any other western media outlet would have done the same (express regret) if the aggrieved parties were Muslims?
First let’s not confuse the situation and draw wrong parallels. TIME’s article was deemed to be offensive to the Indians and not to the Hindus as such and many non-Hindu Indians and NRIs had expressed their outrage over it.
It was made a case of racism rather than of religious bigotry, and more often than not, issues of racism are dealt with much more delicacy and sensibility in the western society than those of religious feelings.
Nonetheless, whether related to races or religions, can we really have an answer to “how far should freedom of speech and expression go?” Should freedom of speech be curbed if it hurts sentiments? Or should there be a freedom to hurt sentiments as well?
Perhaps the obvious answer would be a “no”, but if we think about it, there would be almost no freedom of speech and expression left in that case.
When a film critic trashes a movie in the most acerbic language in a review, undoubtedly he or she is hurting the sentiments of many people directly and indirectly involved with the production of the film. Why should a critic have the freedom to hurt the sentiments of these people?
If Hrithik Roshan approaches the courts to get all the negative and hateful reviews of Kites removed because they hurt his sentiments as well as those of millions of others who are his die-hard fans, won’t we find his assertion ridiculous?
Yet, let’s ask ourselves, why don’t we want to respect the sentiments of Hrithik and millions of his fans? If we don’t like Kites, can’t we just shut up and go home?
But we speak up and say loudly why we didn’t like a movie. Maybe because there is no “absolute truth” about how good or bad a movie can be, for the same movie could be loved and hated by different people. It is a matter of choice and opinion and differences are bound to exist.
In case of film reviews, we have agreed on an unwritten rule that these differences should be respected even if it hurts the sentiments of some people (and I’m damn sure it hurts the sentiments of Roshans when they read those reviews of Kites). So Bollywood gives the freedom to hurt the sentiments, two cheers to that!
Somehow when it comes to religious sentiments, we fail to follow this unwritten rule, maybe because many of us see and claim to experience the “absolute truth” in our respective religions?
As a skeptic, who is not convinced about “absolute truth” of any religion, why should I have not the freedom to hurt the sentiments of followers of any religion?
If I don’t like any religious practice or belief, why should I not speak up against it just like a movie critic or any of us speak up as soon as we don’t like a movie?
Although the TIME magazine article was supposed to be comic and satirical, for a moment let’s assume the author sincerely didn’t like some of the community traits of the immigrant Indians, why should he not have the freedom to speak up and hurt the sentiments of Indians? After all there is no “absolute truth” about what constitutes a good or bad community trait.
Clearly it’s not just about “hurting the sentiments”, we have to go beyond it and find out when there could be genuine reasons to question or curb a freedom of speech or expression that hurts sentiments. I can find three reasons:
- It uses outright obscene or hateful language or modes of expression
- It furthers fabrications and stereotypes to defame a group or individual
- It encourages thoughts or actions that are anti-social or anti-democratic
(with reference to the point number one above, what constitutes obscenity or vulgarity is again debatable and a matter choice and opinion, but I’d leave that out of the scope of this article)
Clearly Hrithik Roshan can’t claim the negative film reviews to be falling under any of the above three categories, and hence critics have all the rights to hurt his sentiments while exercising their freedom of speech. But Indians accused the TIME article of having shades of all of these.
In fact, most of the countries have legal recourses to address grievances arising out any action that follows in any of the above three categories. Therefore, instead of getting outraged and go rampaging in the streets, it’s better to find a solution within the legal framework of that country. I guess in case of the TIME article, outraged Indians did neither.
In India, we have an added reason to curb freedom of speech – It threatens to disrupt public life and order – almost inviting people to go rampaging in the streets and hence bolster one’s legal case?
So, if tomorrow Hrithik can somehow prove that negative reviews of his films can disrupt public order, say his fans could start burning buses, he might get the negative reviews removed? I leave that upon legal eagles to comment if that clause in the Indian law against freedom of speech makes any sense.
Now let’s come back to drawing images of Prophet Muhammad or any other act of freedom of speech that hurts religious sentiments, do they fall into any of the above three categories?
Say, if I draw an image of Prophet Muhammad, which is a favorable depiction showing him as a compassionate human being, how can it fall into any of the above category? Maybe drawing images of prophet is an anti-social act in an Islamic society, but how can it be so in a secular society? The only argument against such an act could be that it ‘hurts the sentiments’. Should we then discard such arguments and continue to draw images?
That’s the most tricky aspect of religious sentiments that it only offers the logic of ‘sentiments being hurt’ in defense and demands respect for itself.
Even in case of individuals, we can find numerous instances where personal sentiments can be hurt with an action or speech that doesn’t fall into any of the three categories listed above. For example, calling a person with amputated legs as ‘lame’ might not fall into any of the three categories, and might even be the “absolute truth”, but most of us would not like to exercise this freedom of speech and hurt somebody’s sentiments.
Should we show the same kind of restraint in case of religious sentiments?
Desirable, but not feasible.
Not feasible, because many times it becomes necessary to question religious beliefs to uphold modern democratic and scientific values.
Someone like Richard Dawkins argues that religions were institutions proposing the ‘hypothesis’ of a supernatural creator God in the same way as any scientist would propose a scientific hypothesis for an observed phenomenon. In his book “The God Delusion”, Dawkins argues that like any other hypothesis, the God hypothesis should also be open for evaluation and even falsification.
So we would need to make that distinction when evaluating an act, which may not fall into the aforementioned three categories, but yet ends up hurting religious sentiments.
In fact one can distinguish such acts of hurting religious sentiments into further three categories (inspired from from an article that Noam Chomsky wrote, where he distinguishes three categories of murder):
- Hurting sentiments on purpose with the sole intent to ‘hurt’ them
- Hurting sentiments inadvertently or accidentally
- Hurting sentiments with foreknowledge but without specific intent
Most of the images or cartoons of Prophet Muhammad that have been drawn recently fall into the first category, which I believe can’t be justified in the name of freedom of speech and expression, even if they (the images) might not have explicitly fallen into any of the three categories mentioned earlier (obscene, defamatory, or anti-democratic).
The TIME article, I believe, fell into the second category. Indians protested and the author as well as the publisher agreed that their original intentions were not to hurt the sentiments. Chapter closed, I hope.
But the third category is where I believe ‘hurting sentiments’ have to be allowed or condoned.
I was not a great fan of the campaign, but the original idea of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”, where it was requested not to draw obscene and abusive images of the prophet, but yet draw the images to drive home the point that threats of violence can’t curb the freedom of speech, fell in the third category, and that’s why I chose to make jokes on Pakistan banning facebook.
The organizer(s), who later dumped the campaign, surely knew that it would offend many Muslims, but they didn’t start the page just to offend them.
One can claim that the organizer(s) could have chosen another mean to drive home their point; but we can claim so in almost all other such cases that fall into this category, and what about those occasions when religious beliefs are conflicting with the modern democratic values? The only mean then left is to hurt the beliefs, sorry. Perhaps it also depends on how strongly you believe in “the ends justify the means”.
I don’t necessarily believe strongly in the above saying, also known as “consequentialism”, but I do analyze my thoughts and actions through the two sets of three categories mentioned above if someone accuses me of hurting their sentiments.
A good read indeed!! Much more important than freedom of expression is respect for others’ religion. It turns out this infection is rather ‘intentional’. Needless to mention what people are interested in so-called “freedom of speech”
I have few things to say.
1) I am a firm believer in “to each his own”. If someone is doing something in his personal life, to which I/Public have no business with, I have no right to barge him with my opinions. For example, I have no right to opine if Hrithik decides to wear a yellow polka dotted skirt tomorrow. That is his life and that is the way he dresses to chose. No business of mine there. Religion, is a personal matter and no one has any right to question my faith as long as am not imposing it on you.
2) If by opining, my agenda is to “hurt” anyone, then it is not right. Satire, sarcasm if used for the greater good and trying to put forth a point, is always welcome. It is the borderline which the public commentators need to understand. Sadly, it is almost impossible to define a explicit difference here.
3) Most of the issues of freedom of speech, until politically motivated, are never a law and order problem. If not politically motivated, they might give rise to few debates over the web/TV/Radio but I am yet to see any important legislation or act coming out of it. (Please point out if there are instances of it, in Indian context)
And to answer the question asked as the blog topic, I will not draw Muhammed for sake of free speech, rather I will go and educate 5,10,15,20 kids. That will be a better answer.
Agree with your “no right to barge someone with one’s opinions on his/her personal life”, but disagree that “religion is a personal matter”.
Religion hardly is ‘personal’ as religious beliefs shape our social values, interpersonal relationships, politics and these days even economics/business and military warfare.
Which religion you are talking that shape society, economy, politics & relationship?
I have nothing to add, but I’ll still comment!
That’s freedom of speech for you
Gr8 read…. Bt i wud like to say something abt the line dat ought to be drawn …. I think its got to be based no society’s constraints and not an individual’s whims and fancies… Agreed, freedom of expression is universal bt its not absolute…. Bt then yes the society also has to expand its ambit, in other words get a life……
If u had invested so much of time on FN we might as well by now had a scorcher of an article. Do you really need to tell the Roshans & the Bachhans to grow up in life and learn to handle criticism ? I could have still understood if it had been the joker Sajid Khan (making fun of Raja Sen & other critics), you are trying to drive some sense into. Y shouldn’t one voice his disappointments against the shitty releases happening every friday ? Ain’t people investing their time & money by going to the theaters with loads of expectations generated by their over hyped productions & getting duped i return. As for the religion – uve said it all.
We cannot even exercise “Freedom of Movement” with Bharat Bandh’s (not to mention Bihar Bandh on 10th july),Freedom of Speech is far-fetched topic.
I am sick of Religious Politics.
Nice article. I think root of the problem arises a bigger problem of our society- intolerance. We are taught to take false pride in our religion, our caste, our country and so on. Fact remains that most people take pride in their religion just because they happen to be born in that religion. No one takes time to study different religions and objectively analyse if his religion is indeed that great. We are taught to take pride in, say, India, not because of some objective reason. We are simply told India is a great country. Isn’t it true that its just one of countries where I happen to be born? Isnt every other country equally “great”? Then should i take false pride in India? What we must teach our children today is tolerance. We must not propagate the myth that our religion/ country/caste is great.
“What we must teach our children today is tolerance”
Are you implying that tolerance must be taught to our children to counter the “Intolerance” that is being taught in our society? As compared to the very “Tolerant” US / Europe / Arabic societies ?? …..wow.
“We must not propagate the myth that our religion/ country is great.”
No. Let us propagate that our religion / country / caste is lousy. But wait, thats already being done! U just have to read BBC, know about the conditions of Indians in Arab states, Visa restrictions on Indians in US / Uk / Europe. Attack on Indians in Australia. Hell even Fiji kicks out “Indians”. real Nice. Its amazing what 1000 years of subjugation can do to the collective consciousness. Another opportunity to play the victim. After all, its what “we did” best. And thanks to people like you, we will continue to play that role very well.
I have no doubt after you have finished teaching “Tolerance” to your kids, they will grow up to be Confident and bold member of your religion/country.
Best part is, large group of “Indians” will actually agree with you and support your views.
PS: You have been taught u’r caste is the greatest ?
Like it or not.
Mr.Ajay Mishra is 100% right.
A very nice post in deed. Most people think about this not to mention even I do, but articulating it so well? Wonderful! I really don’t understand why debates on religion is such a sensitive topic in our country that they are potential wars…Frankly, even I take pride in being a Hindu but don’t mind criticising the customs of Hinduism or Islam or any other belief for that matter. Any faith that disrupts peace or propogates against humanity has to be condemned; using freedom of speech & expression -in humane ways of course.
Nice article. We cannot hurt religious sentiments. Whyis the west so obsessed with drawing of a picture of Mohammad who is not supposed to be drawn ? Same way M.F.Husain has no right to draw Hindu Goddesses as he like. A code needs to followed.
I absolutely agree vid u. I dnt understand y ppl do such disgraceful things. Y to draw things which offend others nd create chaos in the society. U got so many things to draw nd talk about in this world, y to stick to those things which disrupt peace. Draw celebrities, animals or for that matter,yourself. Let us live in peace nd dont create panic. V r already living in a stressful environment. Besides author of this article is confused nd the name “pagal patrekar” suits him. U dont follow any religion, gud for u. But dont make lives of other people complicated by writing such nonsense articles “freedom of speech”. Freedom of speech to u, i think, means using of abusive language nd calling names. We need a code to guide our everday life nd thtz provided by religion. All religions nd their scriptures propagate peace nd other gud things. Unfortunately people get carried away by hatred speeches of some greedy ppl. We shud propagate religious tolerance nd communal harmony nd desist from doing things tht adverently or inadverently cause mental, physical or psychological trauma to an individual or group of individuals…..
I absolutely agree with you.
Dear Pagal Patrakar,
Thank you for taking time and writing this article.
But I don’t agree with you at some parts.
I did not email about your making fun of Pakistan on the issue, it’s your choice to keep your audience happy and entertain them.
But please don’t compare Hritik Roshan with Mohammad (SAW).
Do a little research if you want to know more about him, this is all I can say.
Thank You!
I think the parallel between the TIME magazine article and the Prophet Mohammad’s picture drawing is misleading. Adding another parallel of Hrithik Roshan film’s criticism takes away the whole seriousness of the issue. Freedom of speech is not such a inviolable principle that it stands over top of everything. The people who have intigated this kind of nonsense of painting the Prophet have one sole agenda, to insult Islam and make Muslims angry. It serves no other purpose than that. There are several other patterns of incidents that are happening around the world which have the same underlying mischevious motive and spread Islamophobia. When you appreciate the Draw Mohammad’s day on facebook you justify Islamophobia by taking recourse to the “Freedom of Speech”. It is indeed very disheartening to see that people who are capable of satire such as yourself should stoop to that level and show ambivalence towards a group of miscreants.
I second your opinion.
You have completely missed the point; there was no attempt to draw parallels nor was any attempt to lessen seriousness of the issue by bringing Hrithik Roshan. All the incidents were shown to drive home some points.
I myself have written that actions that are taken with the “sole” purpose of “insulting Islam and making Muslims angry” can’t be justified in the name of “freedom of speech”.
My ambivalence is towards actions that fall in the third category (as stated above, and please read it again) i.e. “hurting sentiments with foreknowledge but without specific intent”.
Thanks.
I see, and I can almost agree with you as well even if we disreagrd the analogies, however can anybody judge the intentions given the fact of foreknowledge on the part of person who made the comment? It would be very difficult to give the benefit of doubt to such people. The only options that seem to be there are either the incident was idiotioc where the person did not care for the consequences or it was outright malevolent. Take the recent case of the “divine encroacher” controversy. Whether Sagarika is liberal or not, whether the Ayodha judgement is prounounced in favour of a temple or not, the comment was a total lack of judgement (and incorrect as well because even if there is an encroachment it is because of the followers and not due to the followed). Even as a Muslim I can see that it would hurt the sentiment of not only devout Hindus but other as well and the author did well to recant the same.
On a side note, I am a big fan of your site and quite enjoy the articles there !!
Thanks
And I agree that there would always be some “gray area” while interpreting actions which I termed (after borrowing from Noam Chomsky) as “hurting sentiments with foreknowledge but without specific intent”.
But I am hopeless optimist, and I hope things would become better in our society.
Re: that times article , i wonder how the indians might have felt while whiteheads rode through their country colonising them
, simply put if a bunch of indian (real asian) warlords had ravaged through the american plains and occupied guys like these would have gone extinct for the better 
Immature post i must say…
“Say, if I draw an image of Prophet Muhammad, which is a favorable depiction showing him as a compassionate human being, how can it fall into any of the above category? Maybe drawing images of prophet is an anti-social act in an Islamic society, but how can it be so in a secular society?”
Secular as I know it, means you treat all religions with equal “Respect” and does not mean that you just make loose statements,comments or anything which leads to hurting of sentiments of a particular religion…Religion is a sensitive issue in itself…Please don’t misguide people….
There is no absolute theory that can be followed when it comes to freedom of speech. all the above points mentioned through which you have based and supported your argument are not absolute, accepted by everybody and comprehensive in its coverage.people have different attachments and beliefs you can say they r wrong if they fall in love with a wall and dislike anyone peeing on it.When a magazine publishes an article it knows very well about its target audience and although its a moral duty to print the facts they must ensure that a part of their audience dont get offended.
You being an atheist presented your opinion which i respect but need not agree a 100 percent.
The point i am trying to make here is that there are different scales to measure different things… and here you are making mistake of not just comparing two different things… but two different segments using the same scale.
Unless you have read the Holy Quran, Hadeeth, The Holy Bhagwad Geeta, and all other Holy Hindu Scripts how should i find you qualified enough to talk about religious tolerance and argue on such a topic?? JUst because you have a lovely sense of humor and flow doesnt mean you can use them talking about fields which you yourself claim to be unattached to. (just like you mocked Arundhati Roy when she was talking about kashmir and its people, and just like you talked about Bihar with confidence having been there and knowing the real scenario).
Please take out sometime out of your busy schedule, read the scripts. search the spiritual part in you and then if you don’t agree with it i welcome you again to the FN blog and will read your blogs related to such topics with the same excitement and zeal as i read your other satires.
BTW I do like your flow….
Great and Valuable article.
Great appreciation to writing such a good articles
“The organizer(s), who later dumped the campaign, surely knew that it would offend many Muslims, but they didn’t start the page just to offend them.”
NO!!! it was not dumped..it went on and I have many of the drawings with me downloaded from that page!!
hii pagal patrakar
u r great