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:

1. It uses outright obscene or hateful language or modes of expression
2. It furthers fabrications and stereotypes to defame a group or individual
3. 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):

1. Hurting sentiments on purpose with the sole intent to ‘hurt’ them
2. Hurting sentiments inadvertently or accidentally
3. 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.

Now what do you do after having a satisfying session of sex? If you are selfish, you straightaway go to sleep. If you are sensual, you hold on and talk to your partner. So let’s talk how it was.

Let’s go back to the foreplay.

Foreplay has the elements of mystery and imagination in it. You might have known your partner for years, but you tend to touch him/her as if you are trying to explore something that was hitherto unknown to you. You might have kissed those lips a thousand times, but you have to feel a new taste every time. You have to use your imagination to make it happen. IPL auctions provided this element of mystery and imagination.

IPL auctions took place for cricketers to be sold (such a dignified achievement for a modern cricketer; apparently, as per the IPL rules, a player can’t negotiate his own contract amount, the franchisees must arrive at it among themselves. This was never deemed as ‘snub’ by any player). No Pakistani cricketer was sold. It was called IPL snub (sounds like snug – an ingredient of foreplay – okay; that was a PJ).

And it remains a mystery why it happened. Was it a pure business decision by the franchisees? Was there any Government pressure to do so? Was there any conspiracy by Lalit Modi against Pakistanis? Was there any conspiracy against Lalit Modi by Congress? Unanswered questions adding to the mystery.

And this mystery gave birth to vivid imaginations. Sohail Tanvir imagined that Hinduon ki zeheniyat hi aisi hoti hai (Hindus are deceitful and disrespectful by character). Our Home Minister imagined that Indian fans were the greatest lovers of Pakistani cricketers. Pakistani Home Minister imagined a planned revenge snub. Shah Rukh Khan imagined that Pakistan was a great neighbor to have. India was turned on.

Personally, I have no idea what was this whole IPL snub all about. All the unanswered questions listed above seem distinct possibilities to me. Seems like this whole IPL episode, which I am calling foreplay, was so good that I just enjoyed it with my eyes closed.

But Shiv Sena had their eyes open.

They had been looking for a partner for a long time. They courted Sachin Tendulkar. No response. They courted Mukesh Ambani. Again no response. They would have been heartbroken and hollering like this little kid seen here in this video, whose advances were blatantly ignored by a little girl just the same way as Tendulkar and Ambani ignored Sena’s feelers. But they decided to test the ‘third time lucky’ theory.

They decided to court Rahul Gandhi. And voila! Rahul responded, although he snubbed them. But we have just seen that how a snub had turned on a whole nation, rather a whole subcontinent just a few days back. Rahul’s snub turned Shiv Sena on. Last time they had to break office of a news channel to turn themselves on. Hungry and horny, now they needed a partner for intercourse. They courted Shah Rukh Khan.

If Shah Rukh Khan would have joined the rank of Tendulkar and Ambani and proved to be the third idiot in Shiv Sena’s eyes, he’d have rendered Shiv Sena as the Chatur Ramalingam (selfish, conservative, and revengeful) in the rest of the India’s eyes. But Shah Rukh Khan was not out there to promote 3 Idiots. His agenda was My Name Is Khan.

SRK had the demand, Shiv Sena had the supply. The twain met.

(At this point, let me make it clear – I’m not hinting at any pre-planned conspiracy hatched by SRK and Shiv Sena. I believe that SRK’s sentence on Pakistani players’ inclusion in the IPL was not aimed at garnering publicity for his movie. But once Shiv Sena gave him an opportunity to do so, he didn’t let it go.

That’s why Karan Johar, who had sprinted to Raj Thackeray to apologize for mentioning Mumbai as Bombay in Wake Up Sid, thought that freedom of speech was of paramount importance. And Shah Rukh Khan, who had, without much ado, changed the title of his movie Billu Barber after protests by some hairdressers, insisted that he didn’t need to change even a single word of his original statement.)

After foreplay, India was progressing towards intercourse.

Intercourse has the elements of dominion and passion. It’s best enjoyed when both the partners take turn to dominate, with the other one playing the submissive role at that moment. Whatever role you play, there has to be a passion in the act. India saw both of these elements in SRK-Shiv Sena standoff.

Shiv Sena took the dominant role in this political intercourse; they love being on top, don’t they? Shah Rukh Khan played along with passion; not submissive, yet not dominant. But to make this intercourse enjoyable and perfect, Shiv Sena needed to be dominated. And hence media and self-styled pro-democracy activists joined in, while voyeurs like me looked on.

The intercourse was just perfect. There was mass moaning and groaning on twitter. There were love bites with Shiv Sena biting off movie posters. And the media discovered the G-spot – cinema halls, which must be reached to achieve orgasm.

Going to a cinema hall to buy and brandish a movie ticket became the symbol of democracy and free speech. It was surely better than joining a facebook community to feed a hungry child or forwarding a chain mail to help a cancer patient. But not any better than buying a Durex condom on Valentine’s Day to oppose moral police (a campaign that has not yet taken off, but if it happens, Durex guys had better pay me for this idea).

But who cares about strictness and exactness of a kamasutra position while sweating with a partner in the bed. We were so busy with the intercourse that we couldn’t even hear a gunshot fired to kill a lawyer defending a Mumbai terror attack accused.

(Before the patriotic types point out that the lawyer himself had a dubious past and was once detained for anti-national activities and hence deserved to be killed, let me tell them to Shut Up – just like SRK had told those ‘sickos’ who hinted at him being hand in glove with Shiv Sena, and like Asif Ali Zardari had told an inattentive student during a public rally.

Anyone, who doesn’t violate the constitution of India, and in fact makes it the basis of his or her arguments (which a lawyer is supposed to do), must be protected (more than release of a movie) for the sake of democracy. If a lawyer is able to release a terrorist, the solution is not to shoot dead the lawyer, but to create stricter laws. Yes, the patriotic types can now point out that Gujarat’s stricter anti-terror law was shot down by the UPA government.)

Not only the gunshot, we went deaf and blind to various other stuffs going outside our bedroom as we twisted and twirled during the intercourse. Rising prices, crores of cash in IAS officers’ houses (by the way, where is Madhu Koda these days?), alleged political protection to an arrested terrorist, and many other things that a fake journalist like me might not even know – they became irrelevant as we tried to achieve a perfect orgasm.

Stimulated by media, the moment of orgasm did arrive.

I won’t try to enlist the elements of orgasm. You can’t define it, you have to experience it. I thought the nation experienced it when the first lot of movie goers came (out), and declared to the waiting reporters outside, “it was awesome”.

My Name Is Khan was superhit, the battle for democracy was won, and the orgy had ended.

So, thanks for holding on and talking. It was nice, but it could have been much better, much sensual, and much more meaningful. Next time, maybe?