Offensive to whom...?

The arrest of a celebrated postgraduate graphics student, Chandramohan Srilamantula, for allegedly obscene artwork involving representations of Hindu deities et al, and the suspension of the faculty, Acting Dean Shivaji Pannikar, who ‘dared’ support him in Gujarat is a sad state of affairs.

The arrest has motivated by a complaint by a local BJP leader, who then proceeded to remonstrate his ‘anguish’ at the artist’s work by barging into the Institute concerned and lambasting the student and his supporters for their insensitivity to ‘Hindu’ sentiments. The local Government being of the same party, the Vice-Chancellor turned a blind eye to what was essentially a case of unwarranted and illegal trespassing in a private area. The ‘notable’ also chose to sit twiddling his thumbs as the police carted of the ‘offending’ student to gaol.

While public sentiments and morality may have been offended, and I stress on the ‘may’, this was not the manner in which the matter should have been pursued. No one has empowered the BJP or any singular political party to behave as the moral code enforcement brigade for anyone. For one thing, I was unaware India ever had a singular moral code which could be enforced in this manner. Morality is a matter of personal beliefs, and should be ideally left to the individual to deal with in his/her personal domain, rather than be mandated by the State or by anyone aspiring to such a status.

The BJP leader, in his zeal et al, conveniently forgets the temple complexes at Khajuraho, which depict the same Hindu deities in perhaps the same poses which he finds objectionable today. Maybe he will tomorrow have them demolished as well?

Hinduism per se doesn’t have a code of acceptable virtues and unacceptable behavior, at least not of the likes of Islam and Christianity, who have their hadiths and their Commandments to guide them. So to say that something is offending to the Hindus would mean implying such a code exists, a fallacy of the greatest order if there was any.

The State cannot bring upon itself to adjudicate whether a certain object can be deemed offensive to a certain section of society, without that society rising up to say so. But it is obliged to protect the freedom of expression of an individual, especially when the expression is done with an aim to enlighten, to spread knowledge.

True, the freedom of expression is limited by the predilection of those who hide behind its protective arms to foment trouble by mischief. When it is so, I say pull the offenders out and punish them in a manner befitting their tomfoolery.

If it can be proved that the student concerned created the ‘offensive’ work with the intention to titillate the sentiments of a specific commune or of the people in general, I say the arrest is valid. But due process should have been followed, that is my plea and entreaty. Morality must be preserved, but then follow the dictum of 'each according to the dictates of his own conscience'.

Reference: Student in jail, Chancellor is upset but the V-C rules.

Justice for all...?

The rule of law is expected to be equal for all, granting the shade of its protection to all and sundry. And though some would opine that law by itself is not justice, and is best an imperfect mechanism, I submit that it is the best that we have at present.

But it is at times like these when one’s confidence in the strength of the law, in the impartiality of the scales, is shaken to the core. When the guards turn on us and ravage us and our trust. The case of the false encounters in Gujarat and Chhattisgarh, as also the inhuman manner in which the State dealt with the anti-SEZ protests in West Bengal brings to fore this quandary that the nation finds itself in.

On one hand, the State is expected to safeguard the rights and privileges of its citizens from all harm. The fundamental rights that are enshrined in its Constitution are not its grant to the people; the people have given themselves the Constitution and with its included provisos, and only they have the right to abrogate the same. The State is asked to protect these rights of all its citizens, irrespective of their caste, creed or sex. It may not exercise its prerogative, implied or imagined, to discriminate in this protection.

On the other hand, the State is seen to infringe upon the very rights it is established to uphold, to undermine the basis of the Constitution that it is obliged to guard. The lack of due process in dealing with the above-mentioned cases, and the absolute lack of respect and sensitivity towards the emotions and feelings as also a wanton disregard for the sanctity of the fundamental rights of the citizens is glaring in itself, and that the State is no more apologetic for its acts is a sad and most distressing matter.

While the acts are in themselves deplorable, those who would attempt to defend them by stating the seriousness of the ‘threat’ that the victims posed to the stability of the nation are living in a fool’s paradise. No threat can ever justify such an act of wanton perfidy. To exist within the garb of justice and order and to perform such a horrendous treachery is the height of hypocrisy. And the guilty have the gall to say that they did the right thing and, given the opportunity, would do it again, if required to. If there could ever be a cause for accusing someone of treason against the people, this would be it.

The states in question are being touted as models of development, as the engines of India’s growth. If this is the cost for India’s growth, I say, let India languish, for India has not sunk to such depravity as of yet to depend on the shedding of innocent blood to wash away the poverty of the ages, nor to stand on the shoulders of assassins to rise to the skies.

The law enforcement agencies are entrusted with the task of ensuring law and order, of guarding the nation from subversive elements, and the law from those who would want to break it. But I ask, in the words of Juvenal, who will guard the guards themselves?

Where be reason....?

It is often the habit of governments to accuse their opponents or those who criticize them, or simply are disagreeable, of partaking in crimes against the nation. How much the charge relates to the truth is anyone's guess, but the fact remains that in many parts of the world, including so-called democratic and civilized nations, this practice of silencing voices by gagging them goes on unchecked and unchallenged.

A Turkish court yesterday has sentenced a senior official of an opposition party to six months of imprisonment and that too because he used the title of 'Mr.' to address a certain Kurdish rebel leader whom the Turkish government has accused and convicted of treason against the Turkish nation. The same official was also imprisoned previously for distributing his party material in the Kurdish language, an act frowned upon by the ruling Turkish elite.

Now, I am convinced that the world is coming to an end. I mean, when a man is sentenced to be imprisoned for appending a title, which would seem so very commonplace, to another man, there seems to be no reason left at all. Purportedly, the usage of the said title insinuates a sense of respect or camaraderie for the 'traitor'. Balderdash! It is a part of polite speech, and politeness has nothing to do with respect; you can be disrespectful and yet be polite.

So is this really about using the 'wrong' part of speech? I don't think so. Turkey has a dark history, and has tried to deny its Kurdish citizens the right to a civilized existence, the right to self-determination. Their culture, their language, their customs are being denigrated and condemned, and all this because the Turkish government wants to instil a sense of unity in the people of Turkey (mind you, not just the Turkish people, but also the Kurdish populace in Turkey) by fostering a Turkish culture. A Kurdish culture would seem to compete for the attentions of the Kurds when they should ideally be focusing on imbibing the Turkish spirit.

And in this lies the dilemma. On one hand, one cannot deny Turkey and its government the right to ensure that its people remain united. And yet, one cannot simply stand by while it attempts to suppress the right of a people, notwithstanding whether they constitute a minority or not, to identify themselves by a culture that has been theirs for millenniums.

It remains to be seen whether conscientious governments, which cherish, or at least claim to cherish, liberty and freedom, will intervene. Till then, it will remain a long winter of discontent in the Turkish peninsula.

Link to the article.

The end of a chapter...and the beginning of another

In my earlier blog on the Jessica Lal case verdict, I had said that justice should be deemed served only when the victims feel a sense of closure. Saddam Hussein, the erstwhile autocrat of Iraq, has been executed by hanging today. For a defender of capital punishment, this should be time to shut up and sit quietly, but then common men rarely keep quiet; it’s just that their voice is rarely ever heard.

Saddam Hussein had been credited by some of his supporters for modernising Iraq, and for having kept fundamentalist Islamic forces at bay by enforcing a uniformly secular policy in Iraq. This is all good, really, but I fear not enough to justify massacring innocent people, just because someone from their community tried to kill you. You may have been the symbol of Arab pride against invading American armies, but your conduct towards your fellow Arabs was never exemplary in the first place.

Augusto Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile, who passed away recently, also was credited by his supporters to have ensured that Chile emerged as the most developed economy in South America during his regime. But they don’t mention the countless thousands who simply went missing, just because they dared to oppose his excesses at times. That a ruler makes your life a pleasure doesn’t entitle him to taking it, if you should start asking him questions. A ruler is at best a symbol of the people, to govern their land at their behest, no more.

Saddam’s trial may have been a farce, considering its speed, and the manner in which it was conducted, but that doesn’t still refute one major point. No matter when Saddam would have been brought to trial, no matter by whom, in front of a tribunal appointed by the occupying American-British forces or by a democratically elected government, the verdict would have been exactly the same. His crimes were too explicit, too open to be denied, too horrible to be pardoned or to be given any sentence other than death. That this execution may smack of victor's justice is coincidental, not integral to the sentence.

And it would seem that no one in Iraq was even trying to. Maybe that is why Saddam in his last testament seemed resigned to his fate, and although he did lament his unfair trial, he advised his people not to hate, not even those who had hanged him, for hate blinds one to reason and makes one unfair. A poignant statement and perhaps a wise choice of words.

His victims and their families may now start the process of rebuilding their lives. They can now try to forget those scars which his regime forced on them, because now nothing would be served by them continuing to remember them. Let his final words, his advice to his people, be his legacy, and may it be taken seriously, so that Iraq returns to its former state, as a pristine nation, the jewel in the sand.

Justice is served.

Justice is deemed served only when the victims feel a sense of closure. It is imperative that one understands that while justice may be delivered, by virtue of a sentence or a verdict, it may still remain far from allaying or soothing the angst of the victim(s), if it doesn’t take into consideration their emotions, and merely judges the issue on the basis of cold facts.

The Jessica Lal case, which has rocked India, has come to an end. Some would exclaim the ultimate conviction of Manu Sharma and his accomplices as the victory of justice, and a reaffirmation of the trust that the common man reposes in the corridors of the judiciary. Some would see this as another indication, another vindication of the principle that all are equal before the law, be they a king or a commoner. And quite rightly they believe so.

And yet, 7 years is too long for justice to be served. In these years, the parents of Jessica Lal passed away, in wait of their daughter’s murderer’s conviction. Allegations of the most reproachable and reprehensible manner have been leveled against the late Ms. Lal herself, and not much was said or done about the one who made these comments. Evidence was tampered with, and the entire judicial process mocked at. What absolute power can achieve if it wishes to do so is aptly demonstrated by way of the manner in which the convicted tried to subvert the system. That despite all this, justice was delivered is in itself a matter of pride, a matter of great celebration.

The family of Ms. Lal had declined to ask for the death sentence for the convicted, on ideological grounds. So, life imprisonment for them is a just punishment, and perhaps somewhere these beliefs of theirs must have weighed heavily with the court when it took the decision of whether to pronounce the death penalty or life imprisonment.

I am a supporter of the death penalty, and advocate it being used to punish those who commit the most abominable crimes, such as pedophilia, patricide, matricide, and even rape. Homicide involving torture of the victim also ought to qualify, as it isn’t simply an act of passion therein, but a coolly planned crime, aimed at causing the greatest degree of horror.

But in this case, the rarest of rare criterion is inapplicable, simply because this was a crime of passion with no ulterior motive behind it. And I do not find it odd to say that by declining to punish Mr. Sharma by way of the death penalty, the court has judged rightly, and judged solely on the basis of the facts before it, and not on the media outcry and the public sentiments associated with the case. The fears of the defense counsel have been shown to have been unfounded, and one’s faith in the judiciary has been reaffirmed once again, manifold.

Justice restored.

The Lady would be pleased today. For once, those who had always been beyond her pale, those who had refused to submit to her diktats, those souls now tremble at her feet, wondering what greater travails she will choose to inflict on them.

The conviction of Mr. Shibu Soren, 'distinguished' member of the Union Cabinet of Ministers, and 'father' of the State of Jharkhand, by a sessions court in Delhi, in a kidnapping and homicide case, and his consequent life imprisonment is a sign that India may be a flawed democracy, but it's flaws have a long way before they may be deemed sufficient to overpower reason altogether. That there are protesters who are declaring the 'innocence' of Mr. Soren doesn't deny this fact; rather it was expected, as Mr. Soren is after all a politician, a leader of the 'masses', and would be expected to find some support from amongst them.
But then I pray that there be no miscarriage of justice, that no laws be passed to overrule such revolutionary convictions, wherein an incumbent member of the Executive has been charged with homicide in cold blood, and has received the second highest form of punishment possible under the Indian Penal Code.
Let this judgement serve as a reminder to both the Executive as also the Legislature that they are at best the representatives of the people, their legates in the halls of power and authority, not their overlords. Let them know that the people have enshrined in their hearts the slogan of ancient Scotland, Nemo me impune lacessit (No one wounds me with impunity). Let this judgment be a wake-up call for all those who know where the rot lies in the system, and cause them to start cleaning it up, not just for this generation, but for generations to come. Let not the Lady be forced to pull on her blindfold again; let this be her prerogative, not her misery.