The Minister vs. Free Speech

We regularly lay claim to the elevated ideals of free speech in the public domain, celebrate debate and discourse as a core cultural anchor of the Indus valley civilization. Yet, six decades after we our famous tryst with destiny - we have failed in large measure to defend these mighty ideals every time they have been threatened. A nation of a billion people, thousands of politicians, hundreds of languages, tens of languages and a place of worship for all four major world religions could find this hard to do, but should not find it hard to aspire for. And fight for.

What is happening in West Bengal is alarming, but it is only a reflection of the dangers of populism, and a result of our choices. As the ecstatic celebration of "Change" was starting to wind down, the worrying underbelly of a newly elected leadership started to show. With strictures on what news sources public libraries should use, school curriculum changes to remove specific historical figures, harassing political opponents and stifling harmless political satire - Mamata Banerjee is doing a huge disservice to her own goals and the electorate's expectations. She must understand the difference between being a popular leader of the masses and running a government. The former requires inspiration, whereas the latter is largely a matter perspiration and general management. Carrying over inspirational gimmicks into the business of governing smacks of desperation and insecurity, often indicating arrival but uncertainty over ones place at the scene.

Free speech in India has often found itself directly on the cross hairs of populism, and Mamata's recent actions while deplorable, are symptomatic of a broader weakness in our public life. Weaknesses beget attack, and populism often catalyzes attacks based on divisive ideas of faith, ideology and diversity. Populism has prevented books from being read apparently because the text could have dismantled the religious structure that had stood steadfast for thousands of years. Artists have been prevented from creative expression, deemed prurient for public consumption by religious zealots who were certainly not versed in cubism or objective criticism. As Rushdie was disbarred from entry by the mullahs, while Hussain was shown the exit door by Pandits - the world laughed while nation denied citizens the artistic genius of her own sons. We have been complicit in these infractions over the years, often through silence. Hussain's depiction of a naked goddess on canvas was not taking it too far, and the atheistic writer had the right to mock a divine prophet. No different than the right of a gentle professor to share a cartoon of the minister. Once you build a wall around is allowed to be read or seen or thought or said, the maze of walls do not take too long. Erecting walls have always been easier than creating windows to let the light in.

The intelligentsia should raise its voice, but must do so with the awareness that sound bytes quickly stale with the 24x7 hour news cycle - while the pursuit of free speech must be relentless. As a society we have rarely measured ourselves with these yardsticks, and have frequently been found wanting. It is only too easy to claim allegiance to the lofty ideals of free speech, when you agree with what is being said. Only when we are able to defend the right of a disagreeable position to exist and challenge our notions and our preferences - we measure up.

Animals fight when they disagree. Humans invented free speech to avoid loss of limb over disagreements. But it can only be free if you fight for it. Disagree?

And while on the subject, here is movie recommendation.
The People vs. Larry Flynt, 1996. A pivotal point is captured in this clip:
http://youtu.be/Z0X3T6-K22o