More on Sedition Law: Say No Evil, Do No Evil

In the passionate arguments that have recently emerged around the related topics of freedom of expression, the Indian sedition law, etc. in the opinion cloud of cyberspace, I've often heard people voice the argument that speech, after all, is merely speech. Different from action.

The voice that argues so, says that people committing crimes as a result of instigation by an agent provocateur are fully and entirely responsible for those crimes, and those inciting them to commit those crimes carry no responsibility at all. Because all they have done is spoken, not acted. They argue that since actors are free agents unto themselves, they would only act on their own accord, not just on someone else's say so. You can take a horse to the water .. blah blah. So, says this voice, words are innocent, even if disagreeable. Only action is guilty.

Sigh.

The next time there is a terrorist attack (Heaven forbid) and there's an international manhunt for the "master mind" behind it, I would like this voice above to step up and say "Why hold the so-called master mind responsible? After all, that individual only spoke, but didn't *do* anything. There was already enough disaffection among those disenfranchised actors to commit those acts."

By the same token, we should not hold Osama bin Laden responsible for 9/11. Nor Hafiz Saeed for 26/11. Their minions did all the dirty work; all they did was to speak. And freedom of speech is an inalienable fundamental right. Right?

Taking the horse to the water is the cause. The horse drinking (or not) is the effect. If the horse does not drink then it is a failed cause. When the mission involves violence against the state and/or its people, do we want to wait till the horse reaches the water to find out whether it will or wont drink? Ergo, sedition law: if you see someone taking a horse to the water, stop them. This is why India is asking for Hafiz Saeed and other rabble-rousers in Pakistan to be incarcerated. In this case, sedition does not apply, since it is a different country, but the principle is the same -- prevention better than cure.

Let's recognize that we live in a world with horses, and men and women who can and do drink, but can't or don't think. That is, they can't or don't think about what they are being inspired/ motivated/ taught/ commanded/ cajoled/ goaded to do, overwhelmed as they are with anger and hatred.

A society where people by and large do not become horses that misanthropes can ride, certainly can - and certainly should - have unrestricted free speech. Ah! would I love that! But, unfortunately, that's not what we have, here (in this part of the world, at least) and now (in the present time, at least). We have misanthropes, we have horses and we have people who can't think beyond their anger and hatred. We have misanthropes who will always stay in the background and whip-up mob hysteria in their constituencies. We have misanthropes who will sacrifice their horses, but save themselves so that they can 'live to fight another day' i.e. continue to pursue their deadly mission of destruction. So they will only speak, never act.

It is what it is. Deal with it. Arm yourself with the sedition law and use it justly. And if you don't trust your government to do that, then fix THAT problem. Don't remove the law! There's a time and place for it. And it is not here, and not now.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Rights and Wrongs, Freedoms and Responsibilities

Mukesh Ambani's new home on Altamount Road has been getting a lot of media coverage lately. And so has Arundhati Roy's speech in Srinagar. These two individuals live in diametrically different worlds (and probably despise each other's weltanschauung, approach to life, and lifestyles) and yet have one thing in common -- they've made it to Forbes' lists. Different lists, of course, for different reasons.

Mukesh Ambani topped the Forbes list of the richest Indians for the third year in a row, and is currently the 4th richest person in the world. And Arundhati Roy was ranked 3rd in Forbes' 30 most insipiring women in the world. Considering that the world population is rapidly approaching 7 billion, this makes both of them very special.

Several critics have been criticising, separately, Mr Ambani for erecting a monstrosity of a building they consider to be an outrageous display of wealth, and Ms Roy for making a speech they consider to be an outrageous display of hatred for India and its institutions. And several people have been criticising those critics, stridently defending the inalienable fundamental rights of those two objects of criticism -- respectively, Ambani's right to spend his money as he pleases (see reader comments) and Roy's right to say whatever she pleases.

How I wish those same critics of the critics would as stridently expostulate with those same objects of criticism whose freedom they defend, about their inalienable fundamental responsibilities as good citizens. How come they don't do that? How come their decibel level is always so high in defending the right of people to fuck-up but nary a whisper when it comes to the duty of the same people to NOT fuck-up?

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Sedition Law: Should India Repeal It?

I believe in free speech and I believe in free markets. After all, the best things in life are free. But I also believe that freedom brings along responsibility, and that it would a gross error to decouple the two.

Laws are not designed in a vacuum. Laws are designed keeping in mind the ideals and principles of civil and moral conduct on the one hand and on the other, the culture and level of maturity of the people who will be governed by those laws. So, while I believe in free speech and free markets, I am reconciled to the fact that they are only suited for a society of mature, civilised self-governing adults who don't need to be supervised and shepherded towards responsible behaviour.

If we are dealing with a society where immature, irresponsible behaviour is rampant, where people display poor civic sense, where people only argue for their rights but do not recognize their duties that come along with those rights, then we need a legal and regulatory framework that clearly defines specific pre-conditions which ensure that such freedoms are not abused. And we need clean, prompt and unbiased enforcement of that legal and regulatory framework. And we need an independent and efficient judiciary that will hear differences of opinion on each case where the nature and extent of enforcement is being challenged, and deliver justice. This is what democracies are supposed to be made up of. This is what we have, in India. And that includes freedom of expression which all of us enjoy, to the extent that we can shout out from our rooftops that we don't have freedom of expression in this country and not risk being thrown in jail.

And if things are not functioning the way they should, then they need to be corrected. Through peaceful means. If the legal and regulatory framework needs to be modified, for better alignment with changing times and changing behavioural patterns, then peaceful public discourse should be used to evolve the most suitable modifications. If the enforcement machinery needs to be corrected, to improve integrity, improve focus, commitment and execution capability, then appropriate reforms should be initiated by the government in office and if that government is not doing its job then the people who elected that government must push for change. Peacefully, through dialogue, debate and negotiation.

Why must people argue the case for unconditional free speech (or unregulated free markets, for that matter) when they can see all around them the tendency of citizens (and corporations, in the case of markets) to ignore responsibility and abuse freedom? Do these same champions of free speech also argue that the laws that govern driving under the influence of alcohol must be repealed? Why not? Why not assume that people are mature and responsible enough not to drink and drive?

To those who believe that India should repeal Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code which defines the offence of sedition, I have a suggestion: let's get rid of all the drunk driving laws first, and see how we do with that. If it works, then it means we're dealing with a mature society. Then, let's repeal the Sedition Law!

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts

Minor Observation #2

There are those who take what they need and there are those who take whatever they can get. Regarding the latter, the compulsion to do so, in itself, defines their need in most cases.

This is yet another factor that distinguishes Man from Beast. And among humans, distinguishes those who are secure, living in a world of abundance created by others like them, from those who are insecure, living in a world of scarcity created by others like them.

You know who you are.

Posted via email from HyperActiveX's (Pre)Posterous Posts