Are we not ashamed?
Hammer and tongs
ALOKE THAKORE
It is becoming clearer and clearer with every passing hour since the Mumbai blasts took place that the solution to such problems of incitement, bombings, blasts, and hatred can be found on the Internet. Where else would those who blasted the rush-hour happiness and life of those returning to their homes have found the impetus to such an act if not on an anti-left site based in the US, a website written in what appears to be the Chinese alphabet, a website belonging to an Indiana University library and information science student who going by the links on his site has BJP leanings, a website with two posts that counts cops busting a party as the most bloody event in a self-acknowledged boring life, or most certainly in the website that carries on its homepage the purported will of Nathuram Godse.
Now it may be that this act of blocking websites has nothing to do with terror on Indian soil of the blast or bomb variety but of that more insidious kind that kindles hate and builds walls between us and them. Some of the websites may be said to belong to that category, others surely, considering that some do not even exist, do not. We have never counted on efficiency or rigour to be part of the bureaucratic machinery of the I&B kind. And then again this entire list may be part of a grand subterfuge to take away our attention from those websites that are indeed being used for nefarious activities, which not eliciting any attention will continue without fear and thus lead investigation teams to the perpetrators` doorstep. Be that as it may, the Indian government, we are told, has such powers and using the exceptions that draw upon Article 19 (ii) of the Constitution the websites have been blocked.
Are we not ashamed?
Stopping speech without any proof of impact or effect went away with Blackstone in 1769. He wrote: "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity." Do we have any proof from the government that any of these websites are responsible for any criminality? None, to the best of public knowledge.
With less than 5% Internet penetration can it be anyone`s case that these websites, most of them in English and at least one in Chinese, are being used to disseminate hate speech of the kind that is not already accessible to the people of the country. At least none can argue for that proposition with a degree of rationality that is minimally required in a deliberative democracy. One can think of numerous oral and written sources in India from where the kind of speech found on these websites can be gathered and discussed.
And let us arguendo take the position that these websites indeed have hateful speech, are their content any remotely different from those that are available in private and public discourses in the country? The answer is an emphatic no. Let us not kid ourselves into thinking that no one in India holds Islam responsible for many of the terrorist acts that take place in the country. Or that no one thinks that there is a Brahminical cabal that rules the country? Or that no one believes there is a dim-witted left wing that sides with Islamic terrorists or at least is not inimical to them because of a shared dislike or hatred for the United States? These views exist. The issue is not whether these are right or wrong. The point is that they exist and anyone who wishes to challenge them must know what the arguments are, how they are articulated, and what are the means used to disseminate them. Such thoughts and ideas will not disappear or die down by banning websites or disallowing them.
Instead it is their expression that will allow us to take measure of these ideas and to adequately refute or support them as we may deem fit. What we have here is the sorry spectacle of a democracy whose leaders often love to quote the restatements of that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" bit, but at the first available opportunity betray their own totalitarian instincts whether it be by banning films, theatre, or books. Instead of going after those behind the blasts and attacks, the government thinks it fit to ban websites. In whose name? To what purpose? By what manner? One can never put it past the Indian government to come up with solutions to non-existent problems. Our democracy and its values be damned.
Contact: hammerntongs@fastmail.in