Ashis Nandy: Interview with Firstpost; SC's dubious remarks; Assaults on free speech growing
NB: This interview is Nandy's explanation of what he meant to say. I accept his clarification, and see no reason why he should be face legal action for speaking his mind, even if we expect him to do so with a better choice of words. (Many of us remember how much vitriol was spoken by Bal Thackeray, both on the judicial process, as well as about 'communities' whom he disliked, and his expressed pride at the destruction of Babri Masjid. Thackeray was never much troubled by the law). It is a travesty of the criminal justice system that hate-speech on a continental scale goes unpunished, but cases get registered against intellectuals for saying something unpopular.
NB Feb 2, 2013: The Supreme Court's statement accompanying a stay on Nandy's arrest is a cause of grave concern.
Here is a comment made by a friend on FB:
Honourable judges on the bench hearing the case.. mention "licence" in their admonitory remarks. Seemingly Nandy had no "licence" to make these remarks. Basic point of law: there is no licence required for speech. It is not like driving a car or distilling alcohol. Speech is free in this country, provided that whoever says whatever is willing to face the consequences. There is a law for punishing hate speech, but the law has to be applied rationally. Nandy has explained at length that he meant no harm. He may have lost his sense of judgment by the marquee lights at the JLF... and his facile comments were completely divorced from empirical reality. No questions there. But if we are really sure that we would like to have the full force of the law - including its most punitive provisions, imposed on him - then we have to figure out how we would rate a slogan such as
Brahmin, Bania, Thakur, Chor, Baaki Sab DS4, or,
Tilak, Tarazu aur Talwar, Maaro Inko Joote Chaar
There is no specific law protecting any of these categories from hate speech, but on any reasonable and fair-minded assessment, these slogans which were widely deployed by the BSP in its rise to power, would merit legal sanction and punishment. We can scour through history and find ample reasons why the oppressed should have the right to speak with greater vigour than the oppressors. But at some point, a statute of limitations sets in and it is best to honour free speech principles, rather than continue to beat the drum of historic grievance. (end of comment)
I would add that slogans such as Babar ki aulaad (to refer to all Muslims), and other contemptuous utterances made in public, such as hum paanch hamare pachees were made during the campaign for the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The late founder of the Shiv Sena had remarked that he 'pissed on court judgements'. As far as I know, no strenuous efforts were made to prosecute those making these utterances. Now the Hon'ble SC bench has declared that "Every citizen has right to free speech but not at the cost of others. We are not at all happy with the way the statement was made. Why do you make such a statement in the first place." (See the link below)
Supreme Court gives relief and an earful to Ashis Nandy
The hon'ble Justices may kindly reflect on how anyone can ensure that his or her speech hurts no one, whether there is any such thing as a 'right not to be hurt'; and whether we must all go about our working and thinking lives taking care not to irritate anyone? My criticism of certain political groups and ideas may hurt their adherents, does that mean I should stop airing my views? With this kind of logic employed by the highest court in India, what will remain of the right to free thought and expression? Surely such remarks were misplaced?
Dalit activist and writer, Kancha Iliah, who was present in the audience when Mr Nandy made the remarks, today spoke in his defence. "Ashis Nandy made a bad statement with good intentions. The controversy should end here," Mr Ilaiah said. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/jaipur-lit-fest-organisers-asked-not-to-leave-city-till-probe-is-on-over-ashis-nandy-s-alleged-caste-323028?pfrom=home-otherstories
However, I disagree with Nandy's (clarified) interpretation of corruption, and have added links to an alternative understanding of corruption at the bottom of this post. I have also added a link to a comment by Ritwik Agrawal.
Firstpost: What did you mean by that one statement that most of the corrupt come from SC/ST and OBC which has caused so much uproar?
Let’s consider some examples:
- Preventing Salman Rushdie from speaking at last year’s Jaipur Literature Festival
- Banning of Prakash Jha’s film Aarakshan [the ban was subsequently revoked by the Supreme Court]
- Vetting of Da Vinci Code by “representatives” of the Christian faith
- Hounding MF Hussian by registering hundreds of cases against him in various parts of the country
- Jailing of a professor in Bengal for forwarding an SMS which lampooned the CM
- Registration of FIRs against a young girl in Maharashtra for an “objectionable” Facebook status about Bal Thackeray
No group or identity [whether Hindus, Muslims, Dalits, Christians, OBCs etc etc] seem to be immune from this widespread malady of ultra sensitive sentiments, injury to which results in threats of violence, rioting and strikes. Repeatedly we see the sight of the police and political parties bowing down to such narrow interests and failing to uphold the right to free speech.. Read more:
NB: Here are two research articles relating to corruption, which argue that it is not a character defect, nor reducible to financial matters, but a structural feature of the Indian polity; more specifically, something rooted in the pattern and conditions of employment. The labouring poor pay the maximum price for sustaining an army of middlemen; and as such, the portrayal of corruption as a balancing force in the economy is a gross misunderstanding. It may be noted that the socially oppressed castes constitute the bulk of the casual and informal workforce in India - Dilip
NB Feb 2, 2013: The Supreme Court's statement accompanying a stay on Nandy's arrest is a cause of grave concern.
Here is a comment made by a friend on FB:
Honourable judges on the bench hearing the case.. mention "licence" in their admonitory remarks. Seemingly Nandy had no "licence" to make these remarks. Basic point of law: there is no licence required for speech. It is not like driving a car or distilling alcohol. Speech is free in this country, provided that whoever says whatever is willing to face the consequences. There is a law for punishing hate speech, but the law has to be applied rationally. Nandy has explained at length that he meant no harm. He may have lost his sense of judgment by the marquee lights at the JLF... and his facile comments were completely divorced from empirical reality. No questions there. But if we are really sure that we would like to have the full force of the law - including its most punitive provisions, imposed on him - then we have to figure out how we would rate a slogan such as
Brahmin, Bania, Thakur, Chor, Baaki Sab DS4, or,
Tilak, Tarazu aur Talwar, Maaro Inko Joote Chaar
There is no specific law protecting any of these categories from hate speech, but on any reasonable and fair-minded assessment, these slogans which were widely deployed by the BSP in its rise to power, would merit legal sanction and punishment. We can scour through history and find ample reasons why the oppressed should have the right to speak with greater vigour than the oppressors. But at some point, a statute of limitations sets in and it is best to honour free speech principles, rather than continue to beat the drum of historic grievance. (end of comment)
I would add that slogans such as Babar ki aulaad (to refer to all Muslims), and other contemptuous utterances made in public, such as hum paanch hamare pachees were made during the campaign for the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The late founder of the Shiv Sena had remarked that he 'pissed on court judgements'. As far as I know, no strenuous efforts were made to prosecute those making these utterances. Now the Hon'ble SC bench has declared that "Every citizen has right to free speech but not at the cost of others. We are not at all happy with the way the statement was made. Why do you make such a statement in the first place." (See the link below)
Supreme Court gives relief and an earful to Ashis Nandy
The hon'ble Justices may kindly reflect on how anyone can ensure that his or her speech hurts no one, whether there is any such thing as a 'right not to be hurt'; and whether we must all go about our working and thinking lives taking care not to irritate anyone? My criticism of certain political groups and ideas may hurt their adherents, does that mean I should stop airing my views? With this kind of logic employed by the highest court in India, what will remain of the right to free thought and expression? Surely such remarks were misplaced?
Dalit activist and writer, Kancha Iliah, who was present in the audience when Mr Nandy made the remarks, today spoke in his defence. "Ashis Nandy made a bad statement with good intentions. The controversy should end here," Mr Ilaiah said. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/jaipur-lit-fest-organisers-asked-not-to-leave-city-till-probe-is-on-over-ashis-nandy-s-alleged-caste-323028?pfrom=home-otherstories
However, I disagree with Nandy's (clarified) interpretation of corruption, and have added links to an alternative understanding of corruption at the bottom of this post. I have also added a link to a comment by Ritwik Agrawal.
Firstpost: What did you mean by that one statement that most of the corrupt come from SC/ST and OBC which has caused so much uproar?
Ashis Nandy: What I said was that most of those caught for corruption come from these three sectors because the upper castes and the rich and the powerful have better ways of protecting themselves, better ways of hiding their corruption. I even gave a direct example of that by saying people like Richard Sorabji and I, if we want to be corrupt we can be corrupt in a very subtle way. No money has to exchange hands. I can give his son a fellowship or he can give my daughter a fellowship at Oxford or Harvard. And that will be good enough return and nobody will call it corruption. I said that the others have lesser chance of hiding their corruption, lesser chance of engaging sophisticated lawyers or giving ideological justification the way the CPM government in West Bengal gave when they were corrupt. It was part of a larger picture. And I also said that as long as this corruption exists among backwards, tribals, OBCs our Indian republic still has some hope.
Firstpost: Why?
Ashis Nandy: It leads hopefully to redistributive justice and equalisation of handicaps.
Firstpost: Why?
Ashis Nandy: It leads hopefully to redistributive justice and equalisation of handicaps.
Firstpost: This was in the context of Tarun Tejpal saying corruption is a great equalizer?
Ashis Nandy:Yes. Exactly. Both of us supported it. I began by saying I am endorsing Tarun Tejpal’s statement and I elaborated on it.
Ashis Nandy:Yes. Exactly. Both of us supported it. I began by saying I am endorsing Tarun Tejpal’s statement and I elaborated on it.
Firstpost: What did you think of IBN7 editor Ashutosh’s angry rebuttal of you?
Ashis Nandy: Well everybody has the right to interpret my statement the way they want. I thought it was very myopic. He didn’t understand what I was trying to say. I have written the foreword to his book on corruption, so it’s not that he does not know my position very well. It’s reflected in that foreword.
Ashis Nandy: Well everybody has the right to interpret my statement the way they want. I thought it was very myopic. He didn’t understand what I was trying to say. I have written the foreword to his book on corruption, so it’s not that he does not know my position very well. It’s reflected in that foreword.
Firstpost: What did you mean when you brought up the example of West Bengal vis a vis corruption during Communist rule?
Ashis Nandy: I said the price of confining corruption — when there is no open corruption — is also that you keep out the Dalits, the tribals, and OBCs from being near power for all times to come, in the name of ideology, in the name of culture. Communists had their own corruption but it does not look like corruption because they had an ideological justification for it. It looks like taking a toll or imposing a tax on the rich and the powerful. That’s the rhetoric at least.
Ashis Nandy: I said the price of confining corruption — when there is no open corruption — is also that you keep out the Dalits, the tribals, and OBCs from being near power for all times to come, in the name of ideology, in the name of culture. Communists had their own corruption but it does not look like corruption because they had an ideological justification for it. It looks like taking a toll or imposing a tax on the rich and the powerful. That’s the rhetoric at least.
Firstpost: You were also calling out the anti corruption movement for not acknowledging their own investment in the system?
Ashis Nandy: That also is part of the story. As long as corruption does not look like corruption it seems alright. As soon as it begins to look like corruption..
Ashis Nandy: That also is part of the story. As long as corruption does not look like corruption it seems alright. As soon as it begins to look like corruption..
Read the full interview: http://ashisnandysolidarity.blogspot.in/2013/01/ashish-nandy-interview-with-firstpost.html
by Ritwik Agrawal: Were Ashis Nandy’s comments justified? Clearly not. His statement was loose, sweeping and unfortunate. But isn’t freedom of speech precisely the freedom to say what others consider stupid or objectionable? Clearly the idea of FREEDOM of speech is not restricted to saying only what is palatable to the other. My right to free speech is precisely my right to question you, object to your views and state what I think, without fear of suppression or physical retribution. But is the State and its organs like political parties at all interested in upholding this constitutional principle? The recent incidents of banning Kamal Hassan’s film Vishwaroopam by some states and the hounding of political psychologist Ashish Nandy are part of a pattern where the “sentiments” of one or the other community are “hurt” by artists, intellectuals and common citizens. Let’s consider some examples:
- Preventing Salman Rushdie from speaking at last year’s Jaipur Literature Festival
- Banning of Prakash Jha’s film Aarakshan [the ban was subsequently revoked by the Supreme Court]
- Vetting of Da Vinci Code by “representatives” of the Christian faith
- Hounding MF Hussian by registering hundreds of cases against him in various parts of the country
- Jailing of a professor in Bengal for forwarding an SMS which lampooned the CM
- Registration of FIRs against a young girl in Maharashtra for an “objectionable” Facebook status about Bal Thackeray
No group or identity [whether Hindus, Muslims, Dalits, Christians, OBCs etc etc] seem to be immune from this widespread malady of ultra sensitive sentiments, injury to which results in threats of violence, rioting and strikes. Repeatedly we see the sight of the police and political parties bowing down to such narrow interests and failing to uphold the right to free speech.. Read more:
