Too often, when people say that they believe in freedom of expression, they mean their own freedom of expression. The restlessness begins when others also exercise their authority and their speech sounds objectionable. Insincere free speech champions are those who don’t like what they do, but reserve their right to be aggressive. They only want freedom for themselves.
This is clearly evident in India. Many like to take the oath of freedom of expression and blame Jawaharlal Nehru for the First Amendment to the Constitution, which placed “reasonable restrictions” on freedom of expression. It was not only Nehru who believed that such restrictions were necessary; He was guided by the debates of the Constituent Assembly and his colleagues Vallabhbhai Patel and Babasaheb Ambedkar were among the many who saw the risk in allowing unbridled freedom of expression.
Following the ruckus on TV and social media over the reckless remarks of Nupur Sharma and Naveen Kumar Jindal, several supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party, including an MP, have described the two as free speech martyrs. Let us be clear: They have a right to have their own views and express them. But as the employer of his services, the BJP has the right to suspend or expel him, as India’s ruling party has done.
But BJP’s stand is not principled. Had the Islamic world not reacted so sharply, perhaps Sharma and Jindal would have remained in office. His effigy would probably still have been hung, he would have received threats, some Muslim clerics would have woken his followers, there would have been protests and stone-pelting, and in a situation that often leads to the rule of law rather than the rule of law, due In defiance of the procedure, bulldozers would demolish Muslim houses.
But Sharma and Jindal had to bow down because the Gulf states, on which India relies for energy and remits money from the nearly 8 million Indians of all religions who work there, resented and could have economic consequences. And when he asked India to apologize for Sharma and Jindal’s irrational enthusiasm, the government dropped them like hot potatoes, calling them “fringe elements”, even though Sharma, in particular, was in Indian homes during the night. He was a guest, he made a reprehensible attack on the opponents of BJP. Shouting at the language and voices of protest on TV networks, instigated by bigoted and rating-hungry ‘news’ anchors.
Perhaps the BJP thought that no one would pay attention except to global organizations that demean Indian democracy, for which the party could challenge their methodology, or a Western foreign minister who could be safely ignored. But the Gulf states were different; When he opposed it, the confidence of the ruling party was shaken.
It is the bonfire of hypocrisy, which reminds us that freedom of expression has consequences. If you say something that is overly provocative, there will be a reaction. The response may be unfair and seem unjust, and may even be wrong, but there will be a counter-argument.
The reaction can also be hypocritical. Kuwait, Qatar and UAE are not democracies. They jail writers and dissidents; Some of them are tortured. He is disgusting. The real question is why India is so eager to please unelected governments, ignoring the US Secretary of State, who also criticized India. Does India believe in ignoring democracy and prefer to bow before powerful dictators?
Some government supporters criticized the hypocrisy of the Gulf countries, saying how Qatar made famous Indian artist MF Hussain its citizen after leaving India as hundreds of cases were filed against him because he painted some Hindu deities naked . How can the same be angry at Qatar Sharma’s remark that pious Muslims are considered blasphemous? Without comparing Sharma’s uncompromising vocabulary with Hussain’s chivalrous artistry, the issue is not Qatar’s double standards, but India’s own fall from grace. Why did the brightest star of Indian art no longer feel at home in India? What drove him away from the land where the mind was supposed to be free from fear?
Sharma and Jindal have landed lightly; A suspension here, an expulsion there, which can be revoked if people forget about the episode. After all, the BJP is a party that has such a big heart that it can welcome so many Congress leaders who have been critical of the party. Think about its latest acquisition, Hardik Patel. Sharma and Jindal may return.
Certainly, the Gulf states and indeed other Islamic countries are hypocrites. His long silence on widespread discrimination against Muslims in India since 2014 was eloquent. Think lynchings, laws like India’s Citizenship Act that discriminate against neighborhood Muslim refugees, the National Registry Project, bans on prayer or wearing the hijab, restrictions on conversions and marriages, razing houses, habitual denial of bail , and a ban on the consumption of beef and the sale of meat in some areas. All this was clearly considered a matter of internal affairs of India.
Lessons for India? Don’t act like the world isn’t watching at home. There are windows. These are made of see-through glass which is not sound-proof. As the late British columnist Bernard Levine once wrote, those living in glass houses must undress in the dark.
Salil Tripathi is a writer based in New York.