Extending the debate from yesterday’s post on upholding the rule of law as dharma, Offstumped turns the focus of the debate to the most contentious issue of free speech and offense.
Before we get to that however some clarifications to those who have been confusing this to be a debate on what the Constitution ought to be. The Constitution as it exists today is a given. This debate is about a political ideology and how that ideology ought to guide one in making choices?on key issues. Where the debate does throw up potential improvements to the Constitution it would be improvements that serve national interest and thus are not specific to the ideology under discussion and must not be construed as the Constitution being influenced by any one ideology.
Multiple issues over the years have emerged on taking offense to what was said in public and reacting. Often the reactions have either resulted in blatant acts of violence and in some cases have resulted in actions by the State against what was said.
This post attempts to address two questions.
How should Hindutva guide one in taking offense and acting on that sense of offense from a set of?constitutionally avaible options??
How should Hindutva guide those in Government in making a choice from a set of available options sanctioned by the Constitution when confronted by a conflict between those intending to offend and those offended ?
Let us examine the first question of taking offense and responding to it. In recent times we have seen offense in two kinds of scenarios. The first is where offense is taken to a work of art -?visual, literary, musical or celluloid. The second is where offense is taken to public utterances or social behavior by an individual or a group of individuals. Without getting into the nuances of either scenario, at the outset we must answer the question -
Is there an overarching doctrine across centuries of Hindu Thinking?that specifies when an individual must take offense and what he must do in response to??
The answer would be no, some may disagree and for those who disagree Offstumped would like to see specific references and details.? So in the absence of an overarching doctrine (unlike the Judaeo-Christian faiths) is there an explicit requirement that one must never take offence. The answer is no to this as well. So if there is any moral prescription that one may distill across centuries of Hindu thinking, it is that whether to take offence or not take offence is the choice of an individual or group of individuals. There is no Hindu mandate either ways.
In the case of an individual or a community choosing to take offense how should Hindutva guide one on the correct course of action. From yesterday’s post it was argued that the set of available options should be those consistent with Dharma and hence that rules out actions that violate the rule of law. It would be safe to assume that actions that abide by the rule of law and conform to the “desireless action” template would be the correct ones.
Let us apply this to a real world example like the Vadodara Art Controversy to better understand this. It would be ok to take offense to a work of art, it is a personal choice, however having made that choice one cannot claim sanction from Hindutva for acts of violence or for issuing threats of violence. One may however choose to act from a sense of duty or dharma by exercising socio-economic or legal instruments to compel the artiste or the Institution in question to assuage the sense of offense. Hindutva should not make a moral distinction between the instruments here thus leaving the choice?to the?individual or community.
So Hindutva as an ideology must stand clearly and unambiguously for the Right of an Individual or a Community to choose to take offense or not take offense. When an individual or community does choose to take offense, Hindutva?must stand unambiguosly and clearly for?actions that stem from a sense of duty not personal gain and actions that use socio-economic or legal instruments which abide by the law with the ultimate choice left to the individual or community. ?Doing so enhances individual freedom and hence would be liberal.
Coming to the second question of how those in Government must deal with a conflict involving offense. The core principle of “desireless action” and dharma is best suited to be applied here. Those in Government must be desireless in their actions to uphold Dharma at all times. This means that there can be no moral sanction for condoning threats of violence as in the Taslima Nasreen case. As far as the offensive act itself the only morally sanctionable course of action would be that which is required by the law as it stands. There can be no moral sanction for not upholding the rule of law.
What of restrictive laws that impose unreasonable curbs and laws that are evolved specifically to appease a community’s sense of offense ?
The absence of an overarching doctrine comes to our aid in resolving the question of restrictive laws. There is no moral sanction for either absolute freedom or for specific restrictions. If there is a moral sanction for anything it is for choice. So one may distill across centuries of Hindu thinking to conclude that it is upto the local community or equivalent smallest unit of social collectives, to choose if it seeks to grant absolute freedom or to impose specific restrictions. Such a unit reserves the right to choose either way and cannot impose its choice on its peers.
History stands testimony to this freedom of choice that has always existed in India to local communities, which explains the millions of gods and the diversity of customs, languages and lifestyles.
This is important for it has many implications. The first implication is that Hindutva must clearly and unambiguosly stand for leaving the choice of socio-economic boycott or legal bans (within the ambit of the Constitution)?on any offensive work of art or behavior to local communities via democratic and representative mechanisms. There can be no moral sanction from Hindutva for centrally imposed legislations or blanket national bans.
What does all of this mean to individual liberty, licentiousness and bigotry. We take them in reverse.
There is no moral sanction for bigotry, that would be adharma. However bigotry is a choice one can make but one must find constitutionally acceptable means of expressing that bigotry as well as be prepared to deal with socio-economic or legal restrictions from a given community in response to such bigotry. There is no moral sanction for licentiousness, that would be adharma as well for it doesnt stem from a sense of duty. However like bigotry, licentiousness too is a choice one can make but one must find constitutionally acceptable means of expressing that bigotry as well as be prepared to deal with socio-economic or legal restrictions from a given community in response to such licentiosuness.
Finally on individual liberty (that which is constitutionally available), the moral sanction would be for those liberties that are consistent with a sense of duty towards that smallest unit or social collective. More on this in the next post as we examine socio-economic choices.
Offstumped Bottomline: There can be no moral sanction for bigotry and licentiousness. However the choice of taking offense or acting on that offense must rest with the individuals and the local communities those individuals are part of. So Hindutva as an ideology must stand clearly and unambiguously for the Right of an Individual or a Community to choose to take offense or not take offense. When an individual or community does choose to take offense, Hindutva?must stand unambiguosly and clearly for?actions that stem from a sense of duty not personal gain and actions that use socio-economic or legal instruments which abide by the law with the ultimate choice left to the individual or community via representative means. ?Doing so enhances freedom and hence would be liberal.
Filed under: Flat World Hindutva, Uncategorized
Yossarin, I like to keep things a bit simple, instead of all this philosophy. Under this FWH, will the couples holding hands in public be harassed by political hoodlums? How about the rights of gays, lesbians and trans people to co-exist in the society, instead of being harassed? And what about the vandalism that happens during V-day? Will the Hindutva parties fight for the rights of such individuals?
Amit – without going into the causes you are espousing the bottomlone was simple and straightforward in the previous post itself. One cannot be a hoodlum and claim moral sanctiom from fwh for acts of “hoodlumgiri” period. “Hoodlumgiri” wud be incompatible with fwh. However one has the right to resort socio-economic or legal instruments as may constitutionally available to act on a sense of offense on any of the issues you mentioned.
Btw not just fwh there is no way any hindu can claim moral sanction for acts of violence which violate the rule of law. He or she is straightaway guilty of adharma.
I don’t care what Hindutva’s take on gay rights etc is; let us focus on the priorities. More basic freedoms than gay rights are at stake. And who is usurping those rights?
Look at West Bengal. Who hounded Taslima Nasrin out? It is the government itself! In other words, government itself is denying freedoms. And that inevitably happens when governments are run by communists. Communists kill people, that is well known. But they pave the way for that killing with denial of rights, and with the making of intoleance and fanaticism as the norm. In order to protect out freedoms, we must first eradicate ideologies like Communism. Western countries can afford to focus on issues like gay rights, because they have already assured their people basic freedoms and hence moved on to the next level. They have also resolutely kept fascist ideologies like communism in check. But for us to waste our breath on gay rights is like getting all worked up about obesity among people when there is the bigger problem of povery and malnutrition to fight.
However one has the right to resort socio-economic or legal instruments as may constitutionally available to act on a sense of offense on any of the issues you mentioned.
Thanks, Yossarin. But why would any of those three actions I mentioned – between consenting adults who are minding their own business w/o harming anyone – cause a sense of offense among other people?
Amit,
Probably you have no time to observe and contemplate before you design your opinions. Because! by your post it is evident that you see the symbolic protestations of card burning on V-days (and some hoodlumbaazi) as the absolute certification that people who uphold Hindutva are bigoted and carry xenophobic tendencies against the mentioned groups (transvestites, Gay, Lesbians etc) .
So here are my humble submissions to the same:
• Why aren’t the same groups protesting against the worshipping of Phallus? (Mind you, its is the Gangadeen Macaulay-sevak who get most embarrassed)
• Why aren’t the same groups on demolition spree against the Khajuraho temple?
• Why aren’t the same groups against the publication of Geet-govinda which goes into the explicit details of Lord Krishna’s lila’s?
• Or why don’t they protest the naked sadhu’s who roam on the streets with merry abandon? (Mind you its is the Gangadeen Macaulaysevaks who take lead in flagellating their practices in Western Media)
• Or why aren’t these groups against offering worship in the yoni shaped Kamakhya temple.
In short, despite all this culturally approved sexual comportment in public life; the underprivileged subscribers of Hindutva get intolerant towards any manifestation of love on V-day.
Ever thought why?
Two reasons:- the subaltern dynamics of class struggle and Nationalism.
The Indian Urban poor in slums, are able to see through the tv the unadulterated bourgeois practices of macualayite India. And the V-day hooplah tends to underline the total class distinction and apathy of the Bourgeois who configure exclusivist clubs that keeps the ‘poor vernacular medium boy/girl’ out from V-day dynamics like Dating/celebrations/Partying/Sex.
With this apparent cultural apartheid, the V-day celebrations are bound to create discontent and unrest among the poor sections. This discontent is further fed by the blatant display of anglophilia, which is rightly seen as mindless aping of western cultural practices while showing apathy/embarrassment/abhorrence for Indic festivals and occasions of love.
So you shouldn’t be all too surprised to see the political response from the have-nots.
>>But why would any of those three actions I mentioned – between consenting adults who are minding their own business w/o harming anyone – cause a sense of offense among other people?
Comrade amit (just to distinguish from Amit Verma):
You are right. When people do stuff that is “self-regarding” in nature, that is, does not concern others, there ought to be no reason why other people should be offended. In an ideal world, they wouldn’t be. Unfortunately, we are not in an ideal world. Let me give you some examples.
Why should a woman walk around with a tent-like black cloth covering her body? But if she doesn’t, and even if she is “modestly” dressed, she enrages some people. Terrorists in Kashmir are enforcing the burqa with the gun. Communists — who have as equal propensity like terrorsits to kill innocents — are silently supporting this enforcement. In Taslima Nasrin case (who offeded people by arguing for women’s freedom) communists actively connived with extremists. Note that this burqa thingie affects far large population than gay rights issue. You should be seriously concerned about it.
As another example: why should it matter that I worship a stone or a tree or a cross or a rock? Well, some people claiming that god doesn’t like “idolatry”, have taken upon it themselves to be “offended” by it. This is one of the reasons why Christian proselytizers and Islamists alike want to convert others: so that “sin” of “idolatry” will cease and their offence will end. Communists support this too.
Somebody wants to start a company, own property, hire people, produce something, and sell it. Communists are seriously offended by it. Only the state (menaing the communist party) can own proprty. Only it can own factories. Only it can employ people. Only it can manufacture stuff. If Communists get a chance, they will kill these private individuals who own property and run factories.
Let us recognize that, in all of the cases above, getting offended is not the real issue, though it reveals the ugly, bigoted nature of those offended. The real issue is that: offended terrorists kill women; offended proselytizers kill people of other faiths; offended communists kill “class enemies”.
That is the crux of the issue.
Because! by your post it is evident that you see the symbolic protestations of card burning on V-days (and some hoodlumbaazi) as the absolute certification that people who uphold Hindutva are bigoted and carry xenophobic tendencies against the mentioned groups (transvestites, Gay, Lesbians etc) .
Amit Verma, and how did you jump to this conclusion about me based on two comments I made? I don’t think you know me or how I think, so aren’t you making some assumptions, and big ones at that? I was talking about the rights of individuals, but you seem to be carrying some baggage of your own about the left, which you conveniently dumped on me. Intellectual laziness, or is there a cheat-sheet where a certain question, phrases etc. makes you instantly put people in a certain box, without making an attempt to find more? Why would you assume that I’d also have questions regarding phallus worshipping, naked sadhus, Geet Govind, yoni temple and Khajuraho? I think under individual freedom/rights, there shouldn’t be an issue with any of these as people indulging in those actions are not hurting anyone, and I’m actually against folks who want to curb those freedoms, or condescendingly deride them.
Symbolic protestation of card burning is fine if the people protesting bought their own cards *first* and then burned them, instead of vandalizing private property, no?
I don’t know if it’s xenophobic, but certainly homophobic, and I’d think it’s an Indian social issue, not a Hindutva one. But, if you say it’s “absolute certification that people who uphold Hindutva are bigoted and carry xenophobic tendencies against the mentioned groups” (which I didn’t even imply – can you share with me your chain of logical thinking that led you to it?), then it’s your prerogative to hold that opinion, since you’re probably the expert on Hindutva.
*Comrade* amit
Ah, the fun starts.
More assumptions, and there goes the chance to have any meaningful conversation here. Basically, any disagreement or questioning makes one a leftist (I think it’s a safe assumption that you used *comrade* for that reason), eh? Convenient for you, I guess, since anyone who is on your side has to close ranks and not question anything, so if anyone does question, he or she is automatically a leftist.
Yossarin,
I think you have made a couple of interesting points, handling offense and decentralization. I’m unable to comeup with a hindu doctrine which clearly elucidates how a slighter or a bigot be handled. The four phased response of Sama->bhed->dhan->dhand may be used here.
A Christian/Muslim might immediately give anecdotes from the lives of their prophets. There are some hindu anecdotes too like a rishi saving a scorpion from drowning even though it stings him at every attempt. But not a doctrine as such. Searching Indian philosophy might provide answers.
But the overarching policy should be that of debate – vivadh to settle differences with due respect to the other side.
The other point of decentralized handling of crises is relevant too. If the people of Godhra could have handled the incident or say the ayodhya dispute had been handled by the nyas and the relevant mosque authorities, we would have been much better off.
Strengthening Panchayati raj should be a priority. The filmi dialogue of “police has never entered our village” will be good if there is justice available at the Panchayats.
With this apparent cultural apartheid, the V-day celebrations are bound to create discontent and unrest among the poor sections. This discontent is further fed by the blatant display of anglophilia, which is rightly seen as mindless aping of western cultural practices while showing apathy/embarrassment/abhorrence for Indic festivals and occasions of love.
Amit Verma, your analysis hits the mark (and I was already aware of that), but if others are mindlessly aping the west, that still doesn’t stop *me* from accepting and reviving Indic festivals and occasions of love (Dandiya anyone?), nor does it follow that I have to make them see the light by vandalism. Don’t you think that’s a bit counterintuitive when we’re talking of love?
comrade amit,
You are damn lucky. I generally dont give others a chance to evade answering uncomfortable points. But i give you the opportunity to weasel out by putting on airs of injured innocence. I really don’t expect you to be able to counter my argument, so i am just being kind. Hope that helps.
In solidarity,
OT
You are damn lucky. I generally dont give others a chance to evade answering uncomfortable points. But i give you the opportunity to weasel out by putting on airs of injured innocence. I really don’t expect you to be able to counter my argument, so i am just being kind.
ot, I guess I must’ve been born under some lucky stars – need to check my janam-patri.
Not sure what uncomfortable points you’re talking about, as I am talking about some specific issues, and not the whole shebang of Islamic extremism, burqa, stone or tree worship, Islamic terrorists, conversion by Muslims+Christians etc. that you introduced into the discussion, which IMO is not connected to the questions I asked.
Yes, it’s not an ideal world, but aren’t we all trying to move it closer to that ideal? Otherwise, we all can go home instead of having a discussion here, or pouring our efforts.
Maybe you can answer my question: What was the reason behind using “comrade” before my name? Either you assumed that I’m a leftist (and you’re not), and used it to label me in a sarcastic manner; or you are also a leftist and thought I was a fellow-comrade railing against the right; or the kind of questions I asked are almost always asked by leftists, hence my immediate boxing into that category by you. I’m sure there are some other possibilities, so I’d rather hear it from you instead of assuming. Thanks.
[...] « Flat World Hindutva – Of Liberty, Licentiousness and Bigotry [...]
[...] Archives 2008 – Flat World Hindutva on Individual Freedom and Socio-economic choice and on Liberty and Licentiousness. Rate this: Share this:FacebookLinkedInTwitterEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]