Ask Vir Ask Vir
banner

Freedom of speech is meaningless without the right to cause offence

Despite the many strengths of Indian secularism and Indian liberalism, there is one issue that always creates problems:

how do we treat the right to cause religious offence? In the aftermath of PK controversy and the shootings in Paris, it may be worth understanding why we always flounder when this issue is raised.

 

In the West, liberal positions are clear cut. I have every right to say what I want about your religion. If it offends you, well then, that's too bad. Neither the law nor the state has any business to get involved. So, even though many Muslims were offended by the Satanic Verses, the US and most European countries refused to ban the book. So it has been with Denmark and the cartoons that caused so much offence a decade ago. And more recently, with France and the magazine Charlie Hebdo.

 

   These positions are somewhat complicated by ancient blasphemy laws that are still on the books in some states. But, by and large, these laws are rarely invoked. And even if they are, there is no doubt that the liberal position is that blasphemy is an outdated concept.

 

   In India, it is not so simple. Even liberals support bans on books and movies. For instance, it was Khushwant Singh, the epitome of the secular liberal who advised Penguin against publishing the Satanic Verses. And then, when the import of the book was prohibited, many Indian liberals took the line that this was a reasonable step given the likelihood of offending Muslims.

 

   This liberal ambivalence has emboldened religious and ethnic groups. It is now routine for some organisation or the other to demand a ban on a movie, a book or a TV show on the grounds that it offends some community. It could be a scholarly work on Hinduism, a TV show about a Mughal Emperor or a movie that sends up godmen.

 

   Hindu organisations say that when the demand emanates from minority groups, authorities and liberals are more sensitive to any alleged offence. But when it is Hindus who say they are offended, they are dismissed as fanatics or fundamentalists. This is not entirely true. When the film of The DaVinci Code was about to be released in India, church organisations demanded a ban or, at the very least, several cuts. This idiotic demand was rejected out of hand by Sharmila Tagore who headed the censor board at the time.

 

   But equally, it is foolish for liberals to deny that we are more sensitive to complaints from minorities than we are to objections raised by the majority community. There is a reason for this. An essential component of Indian secularism is the notion that we must protect the minorities and let them feel that their identity is secure in Hindu majority India.

 

   So a strange liberal consensus has developed over the years without anyone actually spelling it out. We say we believe in freedom of speech but argue that this freedom must be restricted when religious sentiments are hurt. Even when we disregard the objections of religious groups, we rarely do so as an issue of principle. Instead, we look at the objections and decide whether they are valid. We were dismissive of the church's objections to The DaVinci Code because the film had been released without any cuts in many Christian countries. So we decided that the Indian church was being silly. We overruled the objections to PK because we said that the movie only sent up godmen not Hinduism itself.

 

   In no case have we ever taken the principled stand that the western liberals adopt. We never say: who cares if you are offended? It is not the business of the law to protect you from being offended.

 

   This uneasy case-by-case approach to restricting free speech has meant that we rarely refer to first principles. Instead, Indian liberals make up our positions as we go along. And because we refuse to draw a line in the sand, we embolden every nutcase and crackpot to demand bans on movies, books, TV shows, publications etc.

 

"As we have seen, every fundamentalist group that wants to curtail freedom of expression now resorts to violent protests. And most times, the fundamentalists get what they want."

   The truth is that even when we take this case-by-case line, we really don't think our decisions through. Let us take the case of the Hussain paintings. Every liberal I know was (rightly) outraged by the protests against MF Hussain's nude portrayals of Hindu goddesses.  But, at roughly the same time, we also agreed with those who wanted to ban the Danish cartoons of the Prophet. We said that these cartoons were meant to cause offence unlike Husain's paintings which celebrated the Hindu goddesses.

 

   This was a bogus distinction for two reasons. First of all, a liberal position (at least in the western sense) must be that it doesn't matter if people are offended. It makes no sense to say 'well, Husain is a well meaning fellow while the Danish cartoonist is an offensive guy'. And yet that is exactly the position we took.

 

   But, imagine for a moment that the Danish cartoonist had not meant to give offence. Suppose he had painted laudatory portraits of the Prophet (fully-clothed not nude like the Hussain paintings). Would we have welcomed these portraits? Certainly not. Muslim groups would have said that their religion forbade any visual representation of the Prophet. They would have demanded a ban. And not only would the government have given in, but liberals would have supported such a ban.

 

   So, when Indian liberals say we are outraged by the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, all we are really saying is: they shouldn't have shot the cartoonists. In all other respects, we agree with the Islamic extremists who launched the assault. We think that there shouldn't be any visual representation of the Prophet. And we think it is wrong to want to cause offence to any religion.

 

   This position is so bizarre that it goes against everything that liberalism should stand for. It supports an arbitrary restriction on freedom of expression. And it enshrines the dubious concept of 'causing offence'.

 

   When you argue with Indian liberals about the contradictions and paradoxes in their stand, they fall back on that old chestnut: likely to lead to violence. It's all very well to be a liberal, they say, but supposing the publication of a book leads to riots? Is it worth risking the lives of innocent people over some book or movie?

 

   Personally, I believe it is. But even if you don't agree with me, consider this: the consequence of this approach is that anybody who wants to curtail freedom of expression only has to threaten violence for the State to cave in and start issuing bans. As we have seen, every fundamentalist group that wants to curtail freedom of expression now resorts to violent protests. And most times, the fundamentalists get what they want.

 

   I am willing to accept that the Indian reality is different from the west. I am even prepared to concede -- though I do not necessarily agree -- that the priority of any Indian government is the maintenance of law and order and not the promotion of free speech.

 

   So yes, governments may not agree with me. They may be far more willing to issue bans than I would like.

 

   But what about Indian liberals? What does it say about us that even at the level of ideas and arguments we advocate positions that are not only essentially illiberal but are also contradictory, paradoxical and badly thought-out?

 

   The only truly liberal position on the whole issue of causing offence is this: freedom of speech is meaningless without the right to cause offence.

 

   Yes, it may not always be possible to adhere to the liberal position in India. And yes, politicians may not agree with liberal stands.

 

   That, I can understand.

 

   But what I can't understand is how we can delude ourselves into believing the opposite of everything we should stand for while still calling ourselves liberals.

 

   Is it any wonder that Indian liberalism is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the people of our country?

 

   

CommentsComments

  • MD khan 13 Mar 2015

    Vir sir this was an excellent article sir....
    Khan

  • Fairway 14 Jan 2015

    Vir, this is an excellent article.We have known for decades that Liberalism and secularism in India has a very different definition from the rest of the world. Liberalism has been reduced to protection of Muslim rights, brushing aside the rest of the population.

  • addicted 13 Jan 2015

    @Danish

    There is no such thing as a right to never be offended.

  • To view all please click on More Comments below
More Comments:(18)Posted On: 08 Jan 2015 08:14 PM
Name:
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Description:
Security code:
Captcha Enter the code shown above:
 
Name:
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Friend's Name:
Friend's E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
 
The Message text:
Hi!,
This email was created by [your name] who thought you would be interested in the following Article:

A Vir Sanghvi Article Information
https://www.virsanghvi.com/Article-Details.aspx?key=1130

The Vir Sanghvi also contains hundreds of articles.

Additional Text:
Security code:
Captcha Enter the code shown above:
 

CommentsOther Articles

See All

Ask VirRead all

Connect with Virtwitter

@virsanghvi on
twitter.com
Vir Sanghvi