Dichotomy in the use of a fundamental right

A young woman was strongly defending Salman Rushdie in the name of Freedom of Expression. Then someone commented on her post with this: "You bitch". She replied: "You moron, be in your limits. What is this non-sense?" The guy replied: "Freedom of expression!"

 

Salman Rushdie, freedom of speech, fatwa, protests for and against him; social networking sites, including Facebook and Twitter, are exploding with online petitions, protests, notes, comments, and verbal brawl.

 

For an entire week, people wrote articles saying that Muslims have coerced the government, some saw government taking mileage out of the whole drama, some discussed the freedom of speech, but nobody bothered to care about those whose sentiments were hurt.

 

 Freedom of expression is our fundamental right. The individual’s right to freedom of speech and expression is granted by the Constitution of India. For a clear understanding, let me quote the Act here.

“Fundamental Rights” are a charter of rights contained in the Constitution of India which guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony. These include individual rights common to most liberal democracies, such as equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom to practise religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights by means of writs such as habeas corpus."  

 

Our Constitution grants freedom of expression but places restrictions on that freedom in the interests of public order. Our penal code prohibits hate speech. We respect right to expression but this does not mean using abusive language against someone, some religion, or any ideology. Freedom of expression does not mean, freedom to abuse, freedom to malign wrongfully, defame, or hurt any religious community. Gaining publicity by attacking religions and ideologies by unlawful means is no freedom of expression. The clause (2) of Article 19 also prevents any person from making any statement that injures the reputation of another. With the same view, defamation has been criminalised in India by inserting it into Section 499 of the I.P.C. Freedom of expression is a sacred right but it does not include right to insult founders of religions who are held in high esteem by millions of their followers.

 

People advocate freedom of speech and expression. But when people (read oppressed) want their voices, pains, and cries to be heard, there is no such concept of freedom of expression. If you have keenly followed the chatter on social websites, newspaper columns and TV debates, the contradictions are apparent. Liberals who rush to Rushdie’s defence are squeamish about the rights of Zakir Naik, a renowned Islamic orator and a medical doctor who was denied permission to speak in London. Those who abuse M F Hussain for denigrating the Hindu gods are silent on cartoons that insult Islam. If there is freedom of expression for Rushdie, there is also one for Muslims of India to protest against his visit to the country. Aren’t both exercising their fundamental rights? 

 

The Rushdie row should not be allowed to get politicised; it should remain purely a faith-based issue. Among fundamental values of Islam are wisdom and tolerance. The Muslims should make their opposition known in a civilised manner. Their views should be based on reasoned arguments and not through abusive language.

 The Literature Festival 2012 in Jaipur has concluded, and there may not be anymore discussions, tweets, and posts on freedom of expression.  

 

What is important is to ensure that the approach is not unfair or selective. If one wants to support the Rushdie cause, a similar sentiment should be extended to all those who have been banned and/or not allowed to express their views freely. Such a line of action may hurt the feelings of some, but that is a part of one’s moral and social responsibility.