Freedom of speech 151; at public146;s cost

The latest media creation thrives on every daily opportunity to celebrate his brand of yoga.

Grateful practitioner: My blood pressure was 250/110. it is now 120/70.

Ramdevji in wonderment, rotating his arms: 120/70? In how long?

120/70: Three months.

Arm-rotating guru in astonishment: Three months? Dekha, the practice of Pranayama has done what medical sciences could not 8212; go on, keep rotating your arms.

Last week, we saw a smiling Chandrababu Naidu, leader of the TDP, seated near Ramdevji. Presumably, he had benefited from rotating his arms, Pranayama, etc., else why would he be there 8212; and smiling? Many other political leaders 8212; and well-known personalities Ramdevji went to visit Amitabh Bachchan at Lilavati Hospital 8212; are televised in the company of the yoga maestro 8212; a clear indication of his popularity, the success of his programme 8212; and his media exposure.

However, does Ramdevji8217;s well-documented powers of healing give him the right to say whatever he likes about Coke or, for example, as we heard last week, on reservations Sahara NCR: 8216;8216;Reservations, are used by Muslims8230;8217;8217; and contributes to minorityism. Or some such. His tone was the same he had used to describe the 8216;8216;toilet cleaner8217;8217;.

Over the years, Ramdevji has used the media platform to propound his views on the benefits of Hindu religion, culture, values, etc. He has every right to do so 8212; even if he begins to sound more and more like a pamphleteer than a holy mendicant. The question is 8212; does he exploit the media and enjoy the right to propagate any opinion he chooses to on the media?

If the answer is yes, which indeed it must be if you believe that freedom of expression is an end in itself, then the Prophet8217;s cartoons were a legitimate form of free speech. Last week, every news channel worth its freedom BBC, CNN, NDTV, CNN-IBN, etc. debated the cartoons: we went from the extreme Muslim view this is President Bush8217;s way of justifying American behaviour in Iraq or towards Iran, to the middle of the road Muslim view any image of the Prophet, even in a prayer pose, is offensive to the opposite view the cartoon violence is driven by terrorists. So, people have a right to say whatever they like in or on the media, right?

Which brings us to the case of Farah. Heard the student8217;s union president of Aligarh Muslim University argue on TV that AMU had exploited the media to gain sympathy for her false allegation about T-shirts being unwelcome on the university campus. Otherwise, he argued with his own brand of logic, why had she travelled to Delhi to air her opinions instead of talking to People Like Him? From Farah8217;s viewpoint, she had the right to go on air to ventilate her legitimate grievances, and, by doing so, perhaps protect herself from People Like Him.

Finally, a discussion on CNBC-TV 18 on Times of India and Hindustan Times being taken to court for pedalling soft porn: once again, when everything came down to nothing, the question no one could answer was 8212; can anyone say what they like on the media for whatever reason?

Which brings us back to the very beginning. Do Ramdevji, cartoons of the Prophet, the subsequent violent protesters and Farah treat the media, print or television, like their private preserve? Or should that be toilet cleaner?