Right of speech and expression must be absolute. If we don't believe in that, then we essentially are in the same category as the fanatics with only difference being in the shades. The spoken or written word, however harsh and insensitive, never does any physical damage. Physical damage requires physical action and any criminal physical action must be dealt with swiftly under the auspices of law. But should we stop people from expressing their opinions. No. Not even if the opinions are as crude as that of Owaisi. For, the moment we draw a subjective line, that line keeps moving, increasingly restricting people's right of expressing themselves, inevitably resulting in a state where even the simplest of remarks is an affront to someone's sensibilities.
For me, Owaisi's right to insult Hindus is the same as that of Rushdie's to write Satanic Verses; Tasleema Nasreen's right to write is as sacrosanct as Mullah's right to preach. It must be understood - there is no middle ground. The theory that neither Owaisi should say bad things about Hindus nor sartorial cartoons about Muhammad be published by a newspaper - i.e. let's all just shut ourselves up - is essentially the quickest route to serfdom and a police state. Our much vaunted freedom amounts to zilch and we don't deserve it if we don't recognize others right to unqualified expression. And I am deeply pained by the popular intellectual discourse (at least in media) being that a middle ground (everybody just shut up) is the right way. Middle grounds are useful in some circumstances but think about it, if you want a daughter and your wife a son, do you settle for a eunuch? Exactly.
Now, a pertinent question arises with absolute right of expression - political and religious leaders use it to incite their communities to violence. So how can an absolute right be granted. Wouldn't that lead to anarchy. Yes, but only if we deserve it. Just because some imbecile is asking me to kill Hindus/Muslims/another human being, shall I go ahead and do it. If you get influenced by such imbeciles, you are one yourself. We must very strongly lay the responsibility of one's actions where it belongs - on the individuals. If as an individual one has the absolute freedom of speech, one also must bear the complete responsibility for one's actions.
By putting Owaisi in jail, govt. is only going to increase his popularity. What would have been helpful is to have some other leader, Muslim or otherwise, to come out and give a speech challenging each of Owaisi's arguments. Do we not have a single leader today who believes in the idea of India as a syncretic culture, a land of billion people, a million gods, thousands of customs and vernaculars, hundreds of castes and sects, tens of faiths but one India. That would be the real tragedy.
For me, Owaisi's right to insult Hindus is the same as that of Rushdie's to write Satanic Verses; Tasleema Nasreen's right to write is as sacrosanct as Mullah's right to preach. It must be understood - there is no middle ground. The theory that neither Owaisi should say bad things about Hindus nor sartorial cartoons about Muhammad be published by a newspaper - i.e. let's all just shut ourselves up - is essentially the quickest route to serfdom and a police state. Our much vaunted freedom amounts to zilch and we don't deserve it if we don't recognize others right to unqualified expression. And I am deeply pained by the popular intellectual discourse (at least in media) being that a middle ground (everybody just shut up) is the right way. Middle grounds are useful in some circumstances but think about it, if you want a daughter and your wife a son, do you settle for a eunuch? Exactly.
Now, a pertinent question arises with absolute right of expression - political and religious leaders use it to incite their communities to violence. So how can an absolute right be granted. Wouldn't that lead to anarchy. Yes, but only if we deserve it. Just because some imbecile is asking me to kill Hindus/Muslims/another human being, shall I go ahead and do it. If you get influenced by such imbeciles, you are one yourself. We must very strongly lay the responsibility of one's actions where it belongs - on the individuals. If as an individual one has the absolute freedom of speech, one also must bear the complete responsibility for one's actions.
By putting Owaisi in jail, govt. is only going to increase his popularity. What would have been helpful is to have some other leader, Muslim or otherwise, to come out and give a speech challenging each of Owaisi's arguments. Do we not have a single leader today who believes in the idea of India as a syncretic culture, a land of billion people, a million gods, thousands of customs and vernaculars, hundreds of castes and sects, tens of faiths but one India. That would be the real tragedy.
