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

Philosophers and Littérateurs

I've observed that eminent thinkers are generally adept at using words to communicate their thoughts. I've also observed that renowned literary writers usually manifest a philosophical bent of mind in their writing. It appears to me, then, that philosophers and littérateurs have quite a bit in common inasmuch as they both draw on the combination of two key competencies: the power of ideation and command over language, in order to be successful. However, having pondered over this briefly, I see that there is at least one fundamental difference between those who are primarily thinkers and those who are primarily writers.

To philosophers, whose modus operandi typically involves engaging in discourse with other thinkers, language serves as a useful tool to explore ideas and examine concepts. To littérateurs, whose focus typically is on developing narrative that would engage readers, ideas and concepts serve as basic props that, when enriched by the embellishments of language, could tell a compelling story. The quintessential thinker is seized with the quest for sagacity in the process of contemplation, whereas the quintessential writer agonizes over the search for precision in the process of articulation. 

Philosophers delight in clarity of understanding, littérateurs in artistry of expression.

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

Exercises in Sophistry: A Note to the BJP

Dear BJP,

I wish your party members (some of whom are eminent lawyers) would go attend a refresher course in logic. Perhaps that might teach them to steer clear of befuddling fallacies and bemusing absurdities. Such as, for example, the following line of reasoning, which ya'll have been shouting out from the rooftops over the last couple of days:

A. The CBI has been misused by the Congress to serve its own political agenda.
B. Sohrabuddin was a criminal and a terrorist.
C. Amit Shah is innocent of all crimes that he has been accused of.

A crash course in basic logic will tell you that premises A and B -- even if they're true (and I am not even challenging their veracity) -- are not sufficient grounds to derive conclusion C. So kindly do the nation a favour and let the investigation take its own course. And then take the CBI to court if you like. But till then, stop behaving like the Pakistani establishment. You remind me so much of the way they reacted on 26/11 and the way they've been brushing away the evidence against Hafiz Saeed et al. Same panic, same hysteria, same high-pitched rhetoric, same denial. But even so, the truth came out, didn't it?

And lastly, please don't waste the nation's time and money in Parliament today. Be a robust opposition and engage in good solid debate based on good solid reasoning, on all the issues that you need to be challenging the Congress-led UPA government on -- there are lots of them, and I fully support your demand for accountability on all those counts. Please, please, please do not stage a walk-out as you are wont to do, it achieves nothing.

Have a nice day!

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

Effing the Ineffable

As this rather tumultuous week ends, it is heartening to see attempts at bringing the high and mighty to book:

• Amit Shah, Gujarat's Minister of State for Home, suspected of complicity in a fake encounter case, was chargesheeted and denied anticipatory bail. 

• M K Kaushik, Coach to the Indian women's hockey team, was exposed as a sexual predator.

• Salahuddin Ayub, Principal of an elite private residential school in Andhra Pradesh, accused of raping a girl student several times over a year, was taken to the cops.

Common thread: all 3 events occurred this week, and all 3 events involve individuals in commanding positions (in their own respective worlds) who could well have been abusing the meek and defenseless under their control -- the very people who looked up to them for protection and leadership. In each case, powerful friends and allies of the accused have tried (and are still trying, as we go into the next week) to suppress their (alleged) crimes and misdemeanours, obfuscate the core issue in each case and divert public scrutiny by hurling counter-accusations at plaintiffs and/or investigators. We can only hope that justice is done in each case. What happened this week was just the first step, in each of the 3 cases, in what may well turn out to be a thousand mile journey. As we all know, it is not easy to bring to book those who have friends in high places and consider themselves above the law

Alan Watts once said (albeit in a very different context): "I'm in the business of effing the ineffable." Let's hope the Indian justice system is in that business too. 

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