Hollow Freedom in the time of scrapping of 66A

As news spread about the Supreme Court scrapping Section 66A of the IT Act, the media started propping up the heroes responsible for it. Nothing reveals the limited nature of such freedom of expression than the act of coddling a few. 

I am all for such freedom, having used it myself and been sometimes warned against it and, in the past, threatened for it too. Despite this, I do not wish to take the popular (more likely populist) stand about what FoE in this context entails. If you want freedom without resposibility, then will you take what you wish out to others? 

The celebration of such freedom for online activity comes at a time when the cyber cells are approached with complaints against trolls, stalkers and slanderers. The latter two are cause for serious concern. If everyone is so thrilled about being free, will they stop using the 'Report Abuse' button at social networking sites? 

Those against 66A happily ignore the bully culture of the rightwing with their self-righteous fence-sitting by differentiating between hateful abuse and other free speech. We know the difference. But those at the receiving end of the latter might deem it as abuse. This could be about 'blasphemy', or 'hurt sentiments', or a personal assault in these naming-shaming times. Will these internet warriors fight for the right to privacy of victims of social/sexual violence? 

Let me reproduce a few salient points from what I had written earlier:

What issues?

Forums such as these act as extra-constitutional authorities where elected representatives can clarify their position, blame others, wreak vengeance, and campaign for themselves or against others. How is one to accept their version? Why are the usual official channels not used? Why must government policy be announced and discussed on walls and in tweets where there is more likely to be a back and forth of sound bytes rather than a sensible discussion?

Take any issue in recent times and it has become more exaggerated due to this word-of-mouth publicity. YouTube videos and CDs go viral and, much like terrorists claiming their hand in bomb blasts, these denizens claim to play a role in every major happening – whether it is the Arab Spring, exposing leaders, bringing scams to light, pushing the anti-corruption agenda, or showing a politician dropping his pants.

Is there no room?

We have laws for a reason. Do they work well always? No. Does it mean that forming groups and fighting them online will change the reality? This is the frightening aspect. How many of those commenting in morsel sizes are truly attuned to such reality? True, famous people are on networking sites, reasonable people are there, people who matter are there. My question is: Are they also not in places where it counts and are they not capable of pushing for change from where they operate? They can and some do.

For those who think that news is forced down us, how are they so certain that what passes for exchange of ideas on such websites does not do the same? There is bound to be an element of incestuousness, and it is a community too. 

Therefore, it is a bit amusing that when there is a mention of incendiary talk that hurts religious and communal sentiments, there are sniggers. Yet, when this community of networkers thinks it is in danger of being muzzled, there is a hue and cry. What are they displeased about? That their space is being occupied, right? Their freedom shackled. It just so happens that there are different kinds of freedom, and much as we dislike what we deem to be non-liberal thought, also has a right to exercise its freedom.

How free?

Those who are talking about how those who hate them must also be allowed to have their say are largely popular because of just such infamy. This ‘freedom’ affords them statues even if it is to facilitate pigeon droppings. It is the cult of the dishonourable, and some will fall for it. 

There are positive aspects to such sites, but the opposition to a proposed code leaves one with a slightly distorted picture of the whole anti-system. It really is not a contrarian viewpoint but a ghetto that wants its own protection. Not everyone is capable of self-censorship. There are loose cannons. There is anonymity. The idea that it is the only truly democratic medium free of vested interests is a fallacy. Are there no agendas being propagated on the internet, no vested interests?

Who would 66A have helped?

It could be an anti-government crusader who is abused and can seek recourse to action. It could be an individual whose identity is being tarnished.

It is facile to assume that discourse against the establishment will stop. Before social networking, we threw out the British, we threw out a government that imposed the Emergency, scandals were exposed. That will continue not because of, but despite, revolutionaries with hash tags who ensure a trend for a day or so. 15 minutes of fame has just become a lengthened shadow.

It is anyway mostly the elite that not only get to use FOE but also define it, and hail it.The rest are seen as mere default beneficiaries owing their freedom to these benefactors. 

The Pakistani and the Indian

…and my not-so-pleasant exchanges with both

It needs to be let out. I seethe everyday.

He told me, “Even Yahoo was wishing people Happy Diwali”. I did not get the dig until he later said, “Did you put anything on your blog for Eid?”

Oh, so it was that picture of a diya on the sidebar with the words ‘Happy Diwali’ that made him taunt me.

I do not have to justify anything. I had in fact written a post on Eid; I had nothing to say about Diwali this time so I had the picture.

This gentleman is a US based Pakistani. He cooks pork, eats pork and has married a woman who was brought up on that diet, and he has had affairs with porcine woman. He clearly believes as you sow, so shall you reap...

That song I put up had deities, but the beauty of the words and music behind the superficial divinity was lost on him. All he could say was that it made me a “complete Hindu”. He claims to be an atheist. He does not even celebrate Eid and his wife will not socialise with Pakistanis. The only reason firangs may find him appealing is because he can dish out recipes and stories from back home. He becomes a willing slave then, accepting their empty compliments as a stamp of approval.

His constant refrain to me is, “You must be a foreskin muncher”, a “lingam worshipper”.

Is he the exception? I find that those who do not claim to be liberal are in fact less judgmental. I met several so-called religious conservatives in Pakistan and they did not ever make such comments or even imply them.

At the book launch in Mumbai, my co-panellists were clearly of the peacenik variety. I knew that, so it got interesting and even a bit heated when a person in the audience asked why I had mentioned the animosity of some Pakistanis. Because I am not a Kuldip Nayar who will go on an intellectual sanitised trip or a harking back to nostalgia. I gave the version that I experienced, and there were fine examples of many wonderful people as well.

Mahesh Bhatt said something about how the girls at the Kara Film Festival were so helpful and warm. Sure, so were my friends from TV and films, and even otherwise.

Ritu Dewan, who is involved in several human rights projects and Indo-Pak issues, said at one point, “I’d like to take Farzana with me on my next trip and show her how these youngsters interact.”

Again, these are exchange students who go wide-eyed on both sides.

This is not the island I wished to portray. And the person who has commended me is a Pakistani writer who was jailed and has also suffered at the hands of the progressives. He knows both sides.

Are we saying that this animus does not exist? The state in any society can easily brainwash people.

We have our own cuckoo cases. You see them here calling me an Islamic apologist, a covert jihadi, someone who should be sent to her ‘homeland’ that they imagine is Pakistan. I have got comments that I should marry a sheikh and become a part of his harem or move to Saudi Arabia.

These people will never ask me – although they don’t have any bloody right, anyway – to move to a western country although they do mention my elitist lifestyle. Why? Because it will prick their hot air balloon.

With all this it is easy to get cynical. Or angry.

But there have been wonderful moments. There have been Pakistanis who feel that there are few people who as steadfastly believe in India as I do.

And there is a truly wonderful example I wish to cite from the Indian Abusers Clique. One gentleman used to be quite offensive whenever he responded to my writings. One day his tone altered. He addressed me by name, something he had never done, calling me several other things, and greeted me. It was a dramatic overnight change. I asked him what had happened. It appears that he read my online journals, the personal ones. This is what he said, “I suddenly realised you were human”!

I understood the sentiment, but being human is also about being alert and sensitive to things around you, that affect large sections of people, and to be open about your opinion. I do not hide behind the skirt of political correctness or even a ‘balanced’ picture. Readers are not morons; they have minds and can reach their own conclusions.

As regards being a lingam worshipper, let me re-educate those who do not know. It has a longer history and in essence is about concentration. Never mind. Let us stick to basics as they are commonly understood. The worshipped linga (phallus) is always accompanied by the yoni (vagina).

That the comment has come from someone who knows me and claims to think well of me was distressing initially. Now, I have realised that we all have prejudices; those who use their fantasies to buffer them perhaps need more of those.

What can I do? Just sit back and relax? Or watch the film unspool…ah, pass me some munchies please…

Revisiting the callousness towards the Bombay riots

35 ’93 ‘rioters’ walk free (News report)

On the night of January 11, 1993, a mob of around 100 men ran riot in Lower Parel, pelting stones at buildings, looting and burning shops in the vicinity. The police had arrested 49 men, for offences ranging from rioting, housebreaking to theft, but since some of them absconded or died, the trial took place against 35 men (All of them hindus). Although the police assessed a total loss of approximately Rs 85 lakh, only about Rs 10,000 were recovered from the men. Even the investigating officer of the case died during the trial.

Defence lawyer J K Tandulekar said that the prosecution’s case failed miserably when all 13 witnesses failed to identify the accused, and no evidence was gathered to prove the accused had committed the offences. “After 15 years, no witness could recognise three dozen men from a frenzied mob which went on a rampage that night. Sadly, the huge monetary damages suffered during the incident will be foregone and unaccounted for, as the real culprits haven’t been nailed,” Tandulekar added. The prosecution had also alleged that a part of the mob pelted stones specifically on homes of-Muslim families. However, no witness could substantiate these claims nor could any or evidence be put before the court. With the recent acquittal, the number of those acquitted in the 1992-93 riots cases has gone up to 79 from 81 who have been tried (only two have been convicted). Of the 18 policemen examined, 11 turned hostile.

If any of you were around in those days, your blood would be boiling once again. Why is the onus always on the victims? I had seen those shops, houses burning. However, unlike the judge I think we ought to think beyond the money. In 15 years those people would have either managed to put their lives back together again or been out in the streets. Please do look carefully at the portions marked in bold.

How the hell are people to identify those from a mob? And if they had pointed out randomly to some, what would have happened? They would have to provide evidence? Of what? Did they take goddamn photographs while their shops and homes were looted? What does the judge want?

What does this mean: “The prosecution had also alleged that a part of the mob pelted stones specifically on homes of-Muslim families. However, no witness could substantiate these claims nor could any or evidence be put before the court”?

Isn’t this stupid? If those accused were rounded up, then did not the legal system already know who they were? Do they expect the victims to check just the way they were in those days in the good old “Drop your pants and show is who you are” manner?

Please let us know what evidence is required. Why is it so easy to start talking about Islamic terrorists and jihadis but difficult to point fingers at others? They were arrested, they were a mob, and they did commit a crime. What more do you want? Do you think they saved the money in little piggy banks at home after selling the loot to leave as traces of evidence?

Why don’t we just say: No justice is required in this case and be done with it? Well, you be done with it. Because I am going to keep at it.

- - -

In the course of researching an old article of mine, I found this gem by someone, which essentially gets connected with what has been stated above:

Frankly this is what I think. FV doesn’t believe in the middle or moderate majority and the sooner it disappears the happier she is to be `vindicated`. It has been a constant implicit or explicit theme in all her writings on Hindu-Muslim affairs (according to me) that there are no Hindus who are not genocidal and no Hindus who are not hard core Hindutva-vadis pretending to be something else. This could be the general Indian Muslim belief or not, I have no way of knowing. Pakistanis are certainly 100% behind her on this as it is their national ideology.

Now if Hindus in turn believe that there are no moderate Muslims, that they are all genocidal, that of course is also welcome to FV since then she gets to be a victim twice over. It is an ideology one wields, leaving all responsibility for the complexities of real world to everyone else. It is labelled patriotism by some.

Great!

I have often said and will continue to say it: The moderate majority speaking on behalf of the minority is doing a disservice because it only shows up their ‘concern and magnanimity’. Yes, I believe it is patronising. So? Does it mean I do not believe they exist? It is because they exist I am asking them to lay off. It isn’t a question of vindication but letting us speak for ourselves. Am really tired of these “there are no Muslim leaders” whining from the other side…as though there are any good Hindu leaders.

It is convenient for people to accuse me of branding all Hindus when I very specifically use the terms Hindutvawadis, saffron brigade, Hindu fundamentalist. The fact that someone has to state that Pakistanis are behind me is very revealing. It just shows that without my having to believe in it, the Hindutva ideology has seeped into mainstream thought and any Indian Muslim who says something that is ‘Muslim’ in nature is immediately branded along with Pakistan. So, the problem lies with them, not with me.

Of course the last bit had me smiling. FV as victim twice over? FV takes full responsibility for what she believes in but not for what others expect or think she believes in. So, if someone says I think all Hindus are genocidal, that I should be nice to Taslima, then please go fly a kite. The complexities of the real world are as much mine…it is the fantasies of these cyber warriors who have not been to the places I have that makes them talk about the real world. Some of us just live in the real world. We write short stories and poems and musings when we want to fantasise and we call it fantasy or the labels mentioned.

As for patriotism. I really do not need anyone or their cyber chelas to tell me whether they think I am a patriot or not. I don’t need a certificate from anyone, Indian or NRI for that. Branding me with a victim complex is a ploy because many people cannot deal with someone who dishes it out to them in their language and refuses to be cowed down. Only a fool (or a wily mind) would call such a person a victim. There are indeed many so-called secular and liberal Muslims who have these hand-holding sessions with citizens groups and talk about how we are all one…and they feel good because of the concerned Hindus.

I am glad that I am not one with many Muslims either. And the Hindus who know me don’t need to support me. They know what I mean and I know what they mean and we both have our nice little fireside chats and have a good laugh at those who stand and stare.

We have travelled miles…and slept a peaceful sleep…

Caught in the Net

There has been a complaint. I am told I am being unfair for deleting those posts.

How fair is it to post nasty stuff on what is most often one’s personal journey?

How fair is it to go through extreme reactions, all about one blog post?

How fair is it to taunt other commentators?

How fair is it to go on another forum and rubbish me and those who respond to me as my “suitors” who pick up my handkerchief that I have been blowing my nose into? (This rubbishing is not restricted to one person, incidentally.)

How fair is it to not follow basic norms of decent behaviour towards one who has nothing to do with you and is not infringing on your territory?

How fair is it to let yourself become a part of the most juvenile canard being spread when you know nothing?

How fair is it to abuse trust and then hit out because public visibility is more important than a private assurance?

How fair is it to talk about respect and then use the foulest insults against that same person?

If anyone has the answers and thinks I am being unfair after all this, do let me know.

I have faced enough and more of my share of criticism for my views, and have dealt with them with utmost dignity, without compromising on my position. Yes, I am proud of that. But please do not start such futile and puerile ‘discussions’ here.

This isn’t such a forum. This is my home. If you knock on my door I do not expect chocolates and flowers, though they are lovely, but I will not accept anyone walking in with muddied shoes and then trying to throw that muck on me.

And all this for what?

I might add, it isn't against the male gender. I am much amused by a certain female who has been talking about taking abusive men to school. She is being applauded for it. She, who has been amongst the worst possible abusers of men and women. She, who posted personal details about another woman now mentions that woman as one of the people she would like to meet in real life! Ho-hum...

Such is the way things work in this cyber world. But there is hope. There are those who have been working and watching. When I put an acquaintance in touch with some of the stuff on desi websites (she is English), she was shocked. Even more shocked when I mentioned the 'professional' qualifications of some such people.

Let me make it clear: those of you who are sneaking in here with praise and doing your backbiting bit elsewhere have been noticed and marked.