Opinion Intolerable intolerance
Arnold Toynbees delightful book,Acquaintances,has the following passage: Gandhis and Nehrus India was a tolerant India
-
Share -
-
-
Intolerable intolerance
Arnold Toynbees delightful book,Acquaintances,has the following passage: Gandhis and Nehrus India was a tolerant India. He mentions that in a series founded in memory of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad,an Indian whom his countrymen had put in prison Toynbee,an Englishman was the second lecturer in the series speaking to an Indian audience by invitation from an Indian committee. Toynbee would be aghast at the intolerance prevailing in our country. Bans are sought and frequently imposed on books,plays and movies which are perceived to be insulting. Our Supreme Court has emphasised that speech or writing should be judged by its effect on reasonable and strong minded persons and not on hypersensitive persons who perceive insults in any criticism of their beliefs and practices. Section 295-A of the IPC was enacted to punish insults to religion or religious beliefs of any class if done with deliberate and malicious intention. In its decision in Ramji Lal Mody the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this section on the ground that it did not penalise any and every act of insult to religion or religious beliefs but was directed to acts perpetrated with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of a class of citizens.
Import of Rushdies Satanic Verses has been prohibited under the Customs Act. The book has not been declared to be forfeited under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mere possession of the book is not prohibited and prima facie it is incomprehensible how persons reading from the book can be prosecuted under Section 295-A.
Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin is another victim of fanaticism. Her autobiographical book Nirbasan,was launched last week in Bangladesh. Just the day before the books release was cancelled in Kolkata following threats by fundamentalists. When the sixth volume of her autobiography,Nei Kichu Nei,was launched there were no protests. It is sad that the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal as well as the CPM when it was the ruling party have taken similar measures. These measures are generally adopted in order to prevent a supposed law and order situation and not because of the contents of the book and disregarding the essential ingredients of Section 295-A. The basic issue is that freedom of expression cannot be held to ransom by an intolerant group of people. Fanatics who threaten breach of law and order should be prosecuted and punished rather than yielding to their threats. Our Supreme Court in its landmark decision in S Rangarajan vs P J Ram has unequivocally ruled that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threats for that would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and surrender to blackmail and intimidation. Unless intolerance is checked dissent,expression of unconventional or non-conformant views will be inhibited and when that happens democracy will be under siege. And that is most worrisome.
Unique state
Karnataka has the unique distinction of besmerging its reputation. The latest is the incidence of its Ministers and MLA titillating themselves with pornographic clips on their mobile phones. If pornography is exciting to some minds,so be it. But surely there is the question of time and place. Indulgence in it during the assembly session to say the least is a gross affront to the institution. Could not these persons satisfy their penchant for pornography in their homes? Alas not when their spouses are around and thats the rub.
There is,however,a silver lining. The Karnataka High Court last week appointed a 27- year-old transgender Anu as a Class IV employee. This is perhaps the first such an appointment has been made in the country. Anu understandably was beaming with joy on receiving the appointment order from Chief Justice of Karnataka HC,Vikramajit Sen,in the presence of Justice Altamas Kabir of the Supreme Court. Anu will soon join the 5,500 odd strong workforce of the High Court. Good for Anu thanks to a progressive judiciary. There is no question of judicial activism in this case. It is a forthright rejection of bias on account of gender.
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
