Confronting fascism

One of the biggest challenges to free speech today is that the State legitimizes a crackdown by taking the side of right-wing groups ??" It intervenes on their side and by presenting the argument that its needs to act to preserve law and order, it actually legitimizes and widens the scope for curbs on freedom of speech and expression.

It is the principal responsibility of the state to preserve and protect the freedom of speech and expression. Instead, it legitimizes the proscription of organisations and dissident groups on the one hand and condones attacks of fascist organisations on the other. It is this combination that we are witness to today.

Of course, there are a number of television channels that are highly irresponsible and are instrumental in whipping up jingoism and chauvinism. We are actually encouraging intolerance and increasingly becoming a society with the incapacity to tolerate other views.

I remember the issue of the ban on the porn site Savita Bhabhi. The committee that had been given the responsibility to decide the issue said that the site was ‘anti-national’, that it was against national culture. I thought that reasoning was totally absurd. An adult has no right to decide what is in his or her interests? I find it offensive to use the argument of national culture in this case.

I believe the state has begun to interfere a little too much in defining what is right and what is wrong. Sure, there are limits but how do you define those limits?

Another thing is how are we to deal with fascism? I believe that if the State did its duty, we can confront them, engage with them and demolish the onslaught of fascism or hate speech. Also, how exactly do we define hate speech? Because the same argument can be extended to politically dissenting viewpoints, and these will also be banned.

Hate speech becomes a way in which the majority can impose its views. I don’t believe in banning of any views. I do feel that these can be countered in so many ways, by ridicule, parody, logic and reason. Of course, with incitement, there is a separation between speech and action, but what evidence can you gather to show incitement?

For the majority to clamp down is very easy but there are double standards. There may be little difference between the Bajrang Dal and VHP and SIMI, but the latter is banned because it strikes at the unity and integrity of the country. Banning delegitimizes the democratic space for dialogue. It is counterproductive to think of banning something.

Take a look at the issue of Swapan Dasgupta, the editor of People’s March, who died in police custody recently. His magazine was regarded as legitimate, it was legally permitted. Yet, when he was arrested in October last year on charges of being part of a banned organisation, the legitimate space his magazine occupied became criminalised.

Unless we inculcate the habit of respecting diverse views, we are going to fall prey to these attacks on freedom of speech and expression.