The Silenced Freedom of Speech

Two recent events prompted me to write this as a continuation to my last post. Though inherently identical, incidentally, one took place in the east and the other in far west. One took place in a developing country with a central, countrywide ubiquitous judicial system and the other in a developed country with varying state laws. One occurred in a country which is still considered orthodox and conservative in various ways and the other in a country which is supposedly more liberal and reformed.

What was it that was so despicably identical globally despite all disparities of language, tradition, culture, economics, demographics and so on?

 

The first incident (not chronologically) was in India. The withdrawal of the book “The Hindus: An Alternative History” by the publishers, Penguin Books India.

The book was pulled by the well reputed and internationally acclaimed publication house after a long legal battle that began when a Hindu nationalist group filed a suit against the publisher, claiming the book deprecated and trivialized Hindu religion and comprised “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.”
                 
                   The publishers have been globally criticized for their decision, specially by writers like Arundhati Roy, William Dalrymple, Neil Gaiman, and Hari Kunzru, as well as organizations like the National Book Critics Circle and the global community of writers PEN International.

                    Though it may be agreed that the publisher's decision was not a brave one, it is also noticeable that there must be a reason why an arguably inconsequential religious group could shake up a publishing giant. Penguin Books has subtly indicated that it is not happy with its own halfhearted and hesitant decision regarding the book. It says:

 

"it is increasingly difficult for any Indian publisher to uphold international standards of free expression without deliberately placing itself outside the law."  

 

                      This brings forth the question of why such dilapidated religious laws are still existent in a secular republic which result in diminishing literary freedom.

 

Why is it so easy for any random group to have its way with every whim and fancy?

 

Why is the Indian reader considered so unintelligent that he can not decide which books he should read and take influence from?

 

Why have autonomous religious and political bodies with half baked ideas become censors for literature and other media? 

                       

                        Not having read the book in discussion yet, I can not comment if it is a worthy read or not. Critical reviews of the book seem mixed and the theme has not yet roused my interest. Therefore I do not have much information regarding the treatment of the subject matter by the author Wendy Doniger. I also do not know if there is a representation or misrepresentation of the said religion in the book.

                       
                        Despite not having any interest in any religion by any means, I still am very well aware that religion is so huge in itself that a mere book, even if it is incoherent or trivializing (not quoted with reference to the book in question) can not offend a religion.

 

Therefore, people who make the most hue and cry are the ones who do not understand the purpose and magnanimity of religion.

No religion requires such insufferable torch bearers to go on dictating appropriateness of speech and vision.
                       
                        Hence, as a reader and an adult citizen with an independent, fully functional cerebrum of my own, even I am highly "offended" when a group of random people unlawfully edict what I should read/write/watch/speak. If I can elect the government of my country, I can very well decide what I want to read or pass.

                         If someone feels genuinely hurt by a piece of literature, that person has the full liberty to defend and propagate his/her own ideas by bringing forth another, better piece of literature. That would be the recourse of the sensible -

Fight the ink with ink and the pen with pen.

 

After all, the country progresses by creating the new and not by destroying the old.

 

 

The second incident which I feel was even worse, was witnessed in US over an innocent bowl of cereals.

In their advertisement a little girl goes asking her mother if the said cereals were good for heart. The mother answers in affirmative describing some nutrients mentioned on the box. In the next scene the girl's father who was sleeping on the couch gets up with the cereal poured all over his chest. Apparently, the daughter has taken her mother's words literally and emptied the cereal box over her dad's chest to keep his heart healthy.

So, one would assume that the general reaction to the advertisement would be.."awwwwww..cute!!" Or.."hey..that's funny!!" Or.."well.. its just another cereal commercial."

However, it seems the most popular reactions to the advertisement were "****" & "#@$!$%#" & beep-beep!

 

You wonder why? So did I, until I saw the comments posted on its youtube video. The hateful comments suggested in the foulest language possible that the family shown in the commercial was multi-racial which was somehow "disturbing".

 

                           The words used to denounce this harmless commercial were blatantly racist, abusive and abhorrent. These commenters who apparently were born atleast 200 years back, continued increasing in numbers over the Internet, demanding that the cereal company must retract the commercial. Although the cereal company did not withdraw the ad, eventually, the comments got so vulgar that the comment section on youtube for this video was disabled.

                            It was absolutely shocking to see such atrocious display of racism in a country which is considered very liberal by global standards. However, this was not the first episode of such kind in this country. There have been sporadic bursts of negative energy from such ignorant sections of the population time and again. 

Hence, it is evident that unwanted censorship of media based on racism, religionism, regionalism and hoodlumism is still persistent in developed and underdeveloped parts of the world alike.

                             Clearly, it all comes down to the fact that globally, it is the ignorant fraction of population which has become the governing authority for speech and a regular reader/viewer/writer/creator has no say in it whatsoever. The freedom of speech or expression is now a myth for most of us and fighting for literary and social liberation is a long and tiresome struggle.

What should we do? Give up or keep the battle going?

The answer lies in the question- 'What do YOU say?'