PART 1
As one may expect, any discussion with the eminent clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson is eminently enlightening, and it so follows that one of his conversations with Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro was no exception to this impressive feat. I shall, for the purposes of this essay, employ that temperamental description of the political Left and the political Right which he had employed in the said conversation.
Owing to the ubiquity of congenital inequalities amongst humans, there shall ever be some such people who are more dextrous at giving effect to that which we value. Hierarchies, therefore, are inevitable. It is the logic of hierarchies that gives occasion to the division of labour, and bequeaths to our actions a semblance of efficacy. The political Right, therefore, insists on the preservation of hierarchies; it is temperamentally intrinsic to the Right to celebrate competence.
Some such people, however, who may not be as dextrous at giving effect to an action, would be dispossessed by the hierarchy, and they shall therefore be at the lower rungs thereof. Moreover, intrinsic to a hierarchy is the proclivity to calcify; to become so steep as to render the ascent of the dispossessed nearly impossible, and those already at the top may gratuitously use their influence so as to keep the dispossessed permanently so, as well as thereby accrue to themselves more benefits. The political Left, therefore, while cognizant of the significance of hierarchies, also draws attention to the dispossessed, and serves as a watchful entity in order to ensure that the hierarchy does not calcify.
Consequently, there must be a continuous dialogue between the Left and the Right, for the precise moment of the calcification of a hierarchy cannot be predicted in advance. Such calcification could only be determined once the hierarchy has been experienced. So that such conversation may proceed with utmost vivacity, therefore, freedom of speech is of utmost essence. It is akin to a commandment that must not be violated; certainly not by way of physical force.
Never can a human profess the pretensions of perfection, and so it follows that the complex systems we generate through our myriad transactions are susceptible to voids as well. Religion, nation, government, ethnicity, culture and all the hierarchies thereof, are subject to critical analysis, which, courtesy of their imperfections, may lead to the incremental degeneration of society with the progress of time. A societal consensus on free speech is significative of a willingness to continually improve, and to not let creation, namely, the hierarchy, impede the autonomy of the creator, namely, humans.
The said autonomy presupposes the freedom to employ a satirical manner of critiquing a belief system. It also presupposes the freedom to employ the most uncivil of words. Against neither is prosecution warranted, for human life is superior to the preservation of a belief system.
I venture, again, to employ Dr. Peterson’s rationale. I may, in a conversation with a friend, be able with ease to ensure that I do not offend him, or what is rather vaguely termed “his sentiments”. I may, in a conversation with a panel of ten people, be able with some difficulty to ensure that I do not offend the “sentiments” of any of them. Of what Brobdingnagian divinity do you suppose I am, however, that you expect from me the miracle of not offending anyone in an assemblage of a thousand men?
We desire to augment, in our selfish interest, our individual perspicacity. A prerequisite to this is free ideation, or the creative process of generating, developing, and communicating new ideas. But if mere communication is to evoke within you such indignation as to endorse my prosecution, how am I supposed to survive? Why must my existence be subject to the placation of your conceit, which you rest on your doctrinaire adherence to your belief system? Who has bestowed upon you the authority to control my life?
There subsist in this world some such barbarians who perpetrate the most sordid acts on mere account of criticism of their belief system. Their actions are certainly heinous and inhumane. Does that alone, however, qualify your pretensions of humanity should you be willing to endorse arrest for criticism of your belief system? Perhaps the latter, in its severity, is far more humane, but both actions are essentially inimical to individual liberty.
Scarce is there any empirical evidence that the State is necessarily more rational than the masses. As Abhijit Iyer-Mitra notes, institutions reliant on the masses, and the State in a democracy is certainly as such, are neither any better nor any worse than the masses themselves. The government in India can certainly not be accused of adherence to rationalism; in so irrational a country as India, rationalism would scarce be propitious in the amassment of votes. Accordingly, the State must not, so long as I do not physically violate another’s liberty, have any jurisdiction over my sphere of liberty. He who ascends to power does not thereby prove his innate superiority over others; he is a trustee of the faith which the masses repose in him. He is no better than a barbarian, therefore, should he thereby assume that he can subject the liberty of those in his governorate to his arrogant, sweet will.
Belief systems cannot be privileged. The arrest of Munawar Faruqi is deplorable, and so is the killing of Kamlesh Tiwari, more heinous though the latter action is. That it be deemed a divisive ideology to maintain consistency with regard to liberty is merely augural of the speciousness of our public discourse. View it as fundamental humanity, not a political ideology.
PART – 2
The momentousness of free expression having thus been established, it is noteworthy that the proponents of free speech may often constrict themselves to opposing state prosecution of such speech as may be deemed inimical to its paradigm. It is perhaps easier to decisively conclude that such state prosecution is iniquitous, for it sets a bad precedent. The debate garners nuance, however, when humour is the object of application of free speech.
An objective, indeed even perfunctory view of the field of stand-up comedy in India would lead one to conclude that the often calumnious humour with regard to religion — the most contentious issue in India — is restricted to Hindu theology. Humour oriented around other religions — Islam and Christianity in particular — is conspicuously absent. The years roll by, and the Hindus are struck with a feeling of quaintness. A natural question plagues them, “Why are other religions spared the mirthful jabs of humour?” Some among the Hindus have long been acquainted with the answer — a pernicious intolerance of such faiths with regard to their religious symbols. A glance at Indian politics then reveals how such communities have a proclivity to vote in clusters, and therefore constitute a mesmeric ocean of votes. Consequently, in their myopic endeavour to earn votes, the politicians propitiate them, overlooking their derelictions. Political parties transcend the realms of reason to prove their opulent love of such communities; the “minority” in India, thereby cascading fuel on the fires of dogmatic intolerance. That the public discourse in India is so ossified as to synonymize the very word “minority” with the Islamic community is a theme for a separate essay.
It is indeed unreasonable, then, to expect the Hindus to not feel alarmed. The Hindus are then split into two factions worth consideration. One faction is composed of the meritable citizens who regard the notion of free expression with reverence, and seek to exempt none from the resultant potential opprobria. The other faction seeks to turn fundamentalist. It contends that as other religions are spared the stabs of humour, so must the comedians spare the Hindu faith. While the methods and even the paradigm employed by some individuals from the latter faction are often worthy of stinging censure, their sentiment is not entirely sans reason.
What, then, must be the stance of the Hindus? An anonymous author on Quora has made compelling arguments, none of which hold one’s beliefs sacrosanct, but which merely exposit that which would be in tandem with national interest. The remainder of this essay is substantially based on his/her answer, although the language thereof has been suitably modified for the quasi-pedantic format of this blog.
Almost conforming to a foreordained pattern, a comedian retracts his or her comic jabs pertinent to religion once the concerned community rises up in mercurial opposition. Thereafter, the comedian expresses views on the generic atmosphere in the nation appurtenant to free speech. A quote has been attributed to Azeem Banatwalla in the anonymous author’s answer (corrected for grammar and language):
On every occasion when people in this country are offended by jokes, the situation does not entail a due process. The situation does not involve the disposition, “Okay! We’re going to file a complaint with the police and let the cops do their job”. No. There are instead gangs of well-orchestrated people who come together in large groups and basically try to strike fear in you. When a comedian apologizes, it is not because they want to apologize. It is because there’s somebody standing on their head, threatening.
Yet another quote has been attributed to Rohan Joshi (corrected for grammar and language):
You can implore us to be brave and reassure us that you are with us, but you won’t be there when the mob arrives. You won’t see the financial and psychological costs of having your bank account reduced to zero due to legal or security fees.
While the contentions are not entirely unfounded, any immediately thorough concurrence with them would be a perfunctory understanding of the situation.
I shall not include links to the deeply calumnious remarks made by such comedians, nor shall I include their abusive tweets, for the purposes of my essay. However, following are such links as pertain to the more profound issue — that have also been included in the anonymous author’s answer:
https://www.hindujagruti.org/news/127310.html
Intrinsic to this trend of pejorative remarks against gods, goddesses and festivals of the Hindu pantheon is an awareness that not only could the opposition from the volatile Hindu factions never be so mercurial as the violence from other religious communities, but that there is also a sizeable market of recipients who shall elatedly accept their vituperation. For it is considered socially cool, and they are cognizant that the perception of coolness is precisely what youngsters aspire for. More significant than the esoteric notion of creativity, to my mind, is the more tangible reality of business.
The business model is highly profitable, to the point of its metamorphosis into prosaism. Following are the components of the said model, described by the anonymous author (modified for language):
- Step-1: Learn a few fancy expletives in English;
- Step-2: Learn to pronounce them in a polished western accent;
- Step-3: Get on the stage in order to address a gathering of like-minded spurious progressives;
- Step-4: Start abusing Modi, BJP, Hinduism, Hindutva, gods/goddesses, mythology, culture, tradition etc. Maunder some codswallop even in the event that you have absolutely no idea about any of these topics;
- Step-5: Circulate this verbal excrement across all social media platforms; Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram etc. gaining a lot of followers whose intellectual quotient is at par with yours;
- Step-6: Gain instant popularity and a few quick bucks;
- Step-7: Repeat… Repeat… Repeat…
Scarce is it uncommon for such professionals to be subject to heavy animadversion and even malicious trolling on cyberspace, whereafter many tender a specious apology.
The quotation above attributed to Rohan Joshi is particularly sanctimonious. He has in the past resorted to extreme vulgarity, abuse and borderline sexism on Twitter. It is surprising, therefore, that he should gain support from the platitudinous conscience-keepers of the nation whereas Shubham Misra, who had employed pejorative language for stand-up comedian Agrima Joshua but a few months ago, invited the ire of the same clique. Rightfully so.
The author poses a pertinent question: such of those who resort to threats and vulgar abuses against the stand-up comedians must certainly not be treated in a considerate manner. However, are the comedians themselves qualified for any sympathy?
Thereafter, the author presents compelling answers to the quotidian rationalization of the incidents.
Rationalization 1: Chill Dude… Its just a Joke…
Response: More than a mere joke, it is a business. It is notable that such stand-up comedians earn money by means of the degradation of Indian culture. As consumers, it is our prerogative to accept or to not accept that which is being sold.Rationalization 2: If you do not appreciate it, do not pay heed to it. Ignore and mind your own business. No one is compelling you to pay heed.
Response: Unfortunately, the toxicity is too plethoric to ignore. If not subjected to careful scrutiny, a whole generation of children who consume such negativity subconsciously, shall grow up to be immoral loathers of their culture and identity. To merely oppose is an integral trait of a democratic society. But to unceasingly demean, loathe and curse warrants concern if not — and definitely not — prosecution. One can only imagine the horrors of the direction that a nation shall take when such generations proceed to govern it in the future. The morally bankrupt society would then be nothing short of a house of ill fame. Except, that as opposed to one’s body, it shall be national morals that shall be sold. The former is acceptable insofar as one does it of one’s volition. The latter, however, can never be acceptable.Rationalization 3: They do not truly mean to hurt religious or national sentiment. They merely take a dig at the government, which is the quintessence of a democratic society.
Response: Rational and equanimous criticism of religion or nation — conventionally sacrosanct concepts — is also the quintessence of a democratic society. However, sanctimony must be subjected to question. Should a mother criticize one of her two children for a misdeed, which she certainly must, one would not fault her for it. But should the mother recurrently criticize the same child while ignoring the misdeeds of her other, much more violent child and even rationalize the conduct of that other child, further expecting the former child to respect her despite her prejudice, why must the same not warrant censure? Granted that the role of comedians with regard to society cannot be equated to that of a mother with regard to her children, but both are responsible to their respective recipients in their own ways. The problem would not have been so serious had they restricted themselves to comedy. They, however, also attempt to join the ranks of the same platitudinous conscience-keepers of the nation, thus deceiving the youth into thinking of them as intellectuals, notwithstanding their absence of knowledge on topics of concern. Sanctimony must not prevail anywhere.Rationalization 4: But what about the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression?
Response: The Fundamental Right to Free Speech indicates that the State cannot prosecute you merely for what you say. It also indicates that no one has the right to physically violate your person in discord with your views. However, it does not mean that others are mandated to accept or pay heed to what you say or even host you for the same. Public vociferation against you, or a public boycott, or a cancellation of your show or you being banned from an internet community; none of these actions are synonymous with violation of your right to free speech. It merely indicates that these people do not deem you worth their time and do not want you about. You cannot compel such informal organizations to conform to your views or accept your person, for you then violate their right to peaceably associate, and every informal association inevitably involves regulations.
The public demonstrated its unwillingness to accept something deemed uncourteous in a commendable manner with regard to Deepika Padukone’s film Chhapaak.
The film was premised on a real-life story of the survivor of an acid attack, an unconventional theme. Had the process been sans any action that warranted public censure, the film could have been a blockbuster. Yet, Deepika Padukone chose, in an ostensible show of sympathy, to visit the students of JNU protesting in their characteristic ignorance against the Citizenship Amendment Act — a legislation passed by the government in order to grant citizenship to six persecuted religious communities from the neighbouring theocracies of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The result of her visit was for everyone to see:
https://thewire.in/law/deepika-padukone-jnu-moral-clause
As the author points out, the question to be raised here does not pertain to the motivations of the protesters at JNU, or whether they deserve to be called traitors. The only questions that must be raised are as follows:
Question: Is Deepika Padukone guilty of a criminal offence on account of her visit to JNU?
Answer: An emphatic negative.Question: The public was not amused with it. Is it the public’s fault?
Answer: No again.Question: Is the public anger against her movie a violation of any legal provision?
Answer: Again an emphatic negative.Question: Fearing loss of reputation, some brand companies were reluctant to continue with her as a brand ambassador. Must they be subject to legal penalty?
Answer: Never!
Given that all of it conforms to routine forces of likes and dislikes in the market, and that it can be done sans violation of legal provisions, why must stand-up comedians be exempt from the same? Why is any organized boycott deleterious to the ideals of freedom? Why must consumer autonomy be sacrificed at the altar of producers’ autonomy?
The author then addresses more pressing questions:
Question: Must we not bother with more significant issues such as poverty, corruption, unemployment, economy, national security and the COVID-19 pandemic?
Answer: Truly so. These are much more significant issues which necessitate serious attention. However, as common citizens, we have our limitations. Every specialized agency endeavours its best: the Armed Forces et al with regard to national security, the doctors et al with regard to the pandemic, and the State, independent economists and industry representatives with regard to the economy. Is there anything of greater substance that we as individuals can do? However, with regard to the concerns mentioned above, it is only we citizens who can effectuate change. The State must not take action against them. The judiciary must not take suo motu cognizance of their humorous jabs. It is time we treat it as a consumer-producer model and no further. Given that a substantial part of this entertainment business thrives on abuse and humiliation, it is not remotely outrageous to choose to not consume that ordure.Question: What if I do not care about the topic? It is none of my business.
Answer: Then kudos to you! We cannot compel anyone to pay heed to the topic. And to the readers reading this: had you truly not cared, you would not have bothered to read, or perhaps you would have ceased reading much earlier; something you are, of course, yet free to do. But as is my prerogative, I can certainly implore you to set aside the myopic treatment of their vituperation as harmless entertainment. The toxicity resorted to by such stand-up comedians is often contagious and addictive, targeted as they are predominantly towards younger audiences who are not prescient enough to discern their adverse effects on society. OTT movies, web series, YouTube channels are the future — even present but in a greater measure future — means of entertainment. Content aired on these platforms cannot be regulated by agencies such as the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). We would all be responsible for the consequences in the event that we ignore the adverse effects of such content.
One must not respond with such methods as would contravene law and order. One could unfollow, block and report on cyberspace. Condemnation and criticism must be expressed in equanimous language.
Accept their apologies should the action be a first-timer. It is your prerogative, however, to proceed with a legal suit or a simple boycott should the abuse and vitriol be periodic. Pleading victim over offended sentiments, however, shall achieve naught.
The satisfaction that shall result from the loss of the prepotence of such iniquity would not be the bestial satisfaction derived by them after they hurl malicious abuse, but that of pleasant awareness of having been responsible citizens.
It is in our power to shape India and entrust the same to the succeeding generations. Be prudent about it.
SAM'S BLOG 