Bear the cross

Not very smart and quite insensitive, perhaps. But that8217;s not reason enough for officials to press for re-christening of Hitler8217;s Cross. The Mumbai restaurant has hit international headlines because of its branding; the Israeli Consulate has asked local civic authorities to step in. They shouldn8217;t. For all the understandable offence the name and the symbols used has caused, it is no more than a poorly conceived marketing ploy gone wrong. There are many ways of dealing with that; public protests and demonstrations, as long as they are peaceful, could affect business and persuade the owners that their business strategy needs to change. But asking the municipality, which has far bigger problems on its hands this monsoon season, to change a restaurant8217;s name is beyond the pale.

The issue does, however, raise the question how to deal with communities claiming to be hurt by acts of commission or omission. Who can doubt that Hitler was a monstrous historical figure but does using his name in a manner that is not per se anti-Semitic constitute anything more than folly? In any case, and to remind everyone the first principles of freedom of expression, why should the accepted view of Hitler, even if it is so self-evident, determine that his name or symbols of his regime are off-limits? There are T-shirts paying homage to Osama bin Laden that find customers in India and attract no hostile official attention, nor should they.

Freedom of expression is an objective criterion. Sensitivities and historical assessments are always subjective. Somebody8217;s freedom can always upset somebody else; but in the absence of clear, a priori intent to create harm, a liberal society must always ignore or criticise, seldom ban or proscribe. In fact the right lesson from Hitler8217;s Cross for India is that protests from major communities like Hindus and Muslims 8212; the Jews are a micro-minority in this country 8212; on similar issues should also be ignored by governments.