Desicritics Category: Politics: Censorship

To Censor Or Not: Bloggers' Duties and Liabilities

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:52:50 EST

Recently a young blogger from Kerala named Ajith got into some serious trouble after having started an anti-Shiv Sena community on Orkut. Anonymous commentators posted nasty and vile comments on Ajith’s ‘I Hate Shiv Sena’ community website. The Shiv Sena’s youth wing filed a complaint with the Thane (a city on the outskirts of Mumbai) police station against Ajith following which charges were brought against Ajith under sections Sections 295A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

Fearing arrest, the young blogger approach the Kerala High Court and obtained anticipatory bail. Later, Ajith approached the Supreme Court for an order quashing the criminal complaint filed against him. The Supreme Court ruled against Ajith and directed him to travel to Thane and face the charges filed against him.

My initial reaction on hearing of this was on the same lines as my friend Jo who has written an article on this issue here:

However, on reflection, I have come to conclusion that the Supreme Court of India was absolutely right in its ruling.

My reasons are as follows:

Section 295A of the IPC says as follows:“Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 506 of the IPC says as follows:“Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.: -And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”

Though Sections 295A and 506 sound reasonable, they can be (and are) interpreted to cover a wide variety of sins. It is interesting to note that the Indian Penal code of 1860 was created by the British Parliament for its Jewel in the Crown which had mutinied in an unprecedented manner just three years ago (in 1857).

Over sixty years after independence, the IPC has not seen many amendments. As we all know very well, it is not the Supreme Court’s job to make the law. It only interprets the laws that are made by the representatives of the people in the legislature.

Let’s assume that Ajith were a journalist who writes a regular column in a newspaper. Also, let’s substitute the Shiv Sena for an individual Mr. X who is mild and meek and has difficulty melting cheese in his mouth. What would be your reaction if Ajith were to write an article in the newspaper saying that he hates Mr. X, who is the scum of the earth and should ideally be lynched. Would Mr. X have a cause of action against Ajith? You bet he would! Ajith would be liable for both criminal intimidation and defamation.

One of the fundamental principles of law is that every one is equal before the law. Though the intention behind such a principle is to ensure that the weak and the meek do not lose out to the strong and the dominant, the law cannot discriminate against the strong and the powerful either. This would mean that even a nasty piece of work such as the Shiv Sena should have equal protection of the law from criminal intimidation and defamation. If Ajith were to write a newspaper article against the Shiv Sena defaming it and criminally intimidating it, he would be liable under the IPC. The publisher of the newspaper would also be liable.

In this instant case, it was not Ajith who wrote those nasty comments, but some anonymous individual. However, Ajith is in the position of the publisher of a newspaper who is responsible for whatever is written in his newspaper. It is true that the internet is a free medium where everyone has the freedom to express himself or herself. However, there is no reason to take the view that rules regarding defamation or intimidation shouldn’t apply to the internet.

Bloggers and website owners should ensure that no one publish comments on their blogs or websites unless the blog-owner or website owner has approved the comment. Even DesiCritics should, in my opinion, follow this approach, rather than edit comments after they are made.

Finally, let me add this. It seems unbelievable that the Shiv Sena, a party that has specialised in intimidating and harassing minorities in Mumbai should file a complaint against a teenager in a faraway state merely on the basis of comments published on his Orkut community website. I’m sure that the Shiv Sena has not been intimidated by Ajith’s orkut community. It has surely been defamed, but one of the defences to a charge of defamation is that the alleged statement or writing that caused the defamation is ‘true’.

I’m sure that there will be hundreds of lawyers in Mumbai who are happy to defend Blogger Ajith (now a cause celebré). However, travel to Thane Ajith must, as directed by the Supreme Court of India, and answer those ridiculous charges.

India's Post-Independence Fight For Freedom

Aditi Nadkarni — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:55:37 EST

Let me cut right to the chase here. This is unacceptable. Let me say it again for emphasis. It is not just bothersome or even upsetting. It is unacceptable. In the 21st century, in a democratic, secular nation, what has been going on, festering like a recurrent lesion, sprouting in every part of India, is just, simply unacceptable and will not do.

In case you are wondering who it is that's going to stand up to it: we are. We will not allow our freedom to be violated and we will make sure we protect the independence we fought long and hard to get the first time around. We have come a long way. We have seen the change and been the change. So who better than our pioneering, hot-blooded breed to stand up to the revolting and shockingly regressive acts of a few who feel threatened by progress.

They are just acting out of fear. It is obvious, isn't it? They attack in packs, afraid to be the lone ones incriminated. They target women and assault safely from behind the vague curtains of culture. But we all know that it isn't their culture that is in grave danger. Their position, their power and the extent of their bullying is in great peril. The places where they once ruled the roost are now turning into big, bustling cities making them feel like small, insignificant fish in a big sea.

Institutions and companies have transported the educated, smart crowd into the vacuum in which these bullies once enjoyed unfettered omnipotence. Now, in place of the void, there is a young, vivacious bunch of professionals, men and women who work hard and party hard and do so shoulder to shoulder. These people are harder to manipulate. This crowd has not just taken over, they threaten to pull into their growing ilk, the younger ones too. Business are bending over backwards to accommodate the needs of this new species and everything that once belonged to the bullies is now up for grabs. So they are retaliating. They are like petulant little children who couldn't have all that they demanded, hated sharing and so now are acting up. Therefore it is up to us, the educated class to teach these spoiled little brats to grow up and stop reacting so bizarrely to change. We must do it in a manner that is as different from theirs as is humanly possible.

So now comes the big question: how do we do it? How do we make our presence known? The answer may seem too simplistic because it sits smack in front of our faces. Think about it: we travel through these cities like one stream of blood, flowing steadily, keeping the city alive, stuffed in trains, piled into buses, walking along the teeming streets. Even partying and a trip to the movie theater is all the more fun with a group. We work in teams and are all the more effective for that. We discuss films, fashion, clothes, the economy, the job market and even our health problems. Yet this fear of walking out on the streets of a free country seems like a personal problem, like we were alone in that walk, like when a bully arrived with his little gang and punched us in the face, we would be all by ourselves and the world around us would just suddenly go blind. What we forget is that in this lonely fear too, we are still together. In this anger against the unfairness of the situation, we are together. We can if we decided, be together in the one resolute determination of not letting a handful of insecure men undo all that we have put into making our cities. So the answer is simple. Whatever it is we do, we do it together.

We celebrated Valentine's Day battling fear and took the threats in our stride defanging the demons with the pink disarming humor of our proud underwear. With the International Women's Day approaching, it is time to get serious. In our busy, routine lives we have underestimated the power of silent, non-violent protests. All it takes is for people to stand at a side-walk with banners to get word around. Some major struggles were won with this strategy and somewhere along the line we just shrugged and rolled our eyes at the quiet potential of public demonstrations and satyagrahas. Maybe we started taking our precious freedom for granted and needed to be reminded that we simply cannot. We have to earn it and when someone tries to snatch it, we fight for it.

It is important, I feel, in today's world to use media smartly. Instead of constantly criticizing media's inadequacies, we could use it as a tool. Find a niche and throw yourself into the swift current of this ever growing medium. Find a female leader in your area who is looking to make an arrival on the political scene. Do a little research. If one political party is making your life difficult for wearing jeans and celebrating Valentine's Day and there damn well must be another party that will fight for your votes, or can be persuaded to do so.

Find a celebrity who is willing to make your cause their own or give your movement their support and voice. Find a television network, a newspaper or a magazine that will run your story and provide your opinions with a voice. Find an artist who will put your thoughts into a slogan or a creative, riveting poster. Write to your city officials, your ministers and drown their offices in letters of your indignant protest. Just remember that one or two voices are easy to be ignored. If you are fuming over a coffee mug at your kitchen table, take that rage to a medium that will express it in the most noticeable manner possible.

Haven't we whined about a dysfunctional system for too long? When has this "system" ever worked? Maybe we just don't realize that we are one of the appendages of this faulty system. If the system is not working, we, as a group could propel in into motion. What will it take for us to get off our bums and make a placard with a strong message on it? This is not a women's liberation movement at all. Genders cannot be fighting alone in a battle such as this one. It could be your sister wearing jeans, coming home from work. It could be your teenage daughter walking back from school or college, the neighborhood aunty who brought you food when you were sick, a dear friend or your colleague. Most importantly, it is them today and it could be you next.

Let us review what the odds are of your being targeted next. You have a very high chance of being next on the hit-list if you answer 'Yes' for any of the following questions. Are you considered an "outsider" in Bangalore or a non-Maharashtrian in Maharashtra? Do you party? Do you meet up with friends at pubs? Do you wear jeans or clothing that may not be considered "Indian"? Do you eat pizza or meat? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Does your religious persuasion always match that of the political party currently raging a mini-war in the nation you know of as secular? Do you send children to convent or English medium schools? Do you have a spouse of a different religious persuasion than yours? Do you have friends of the opposite sex? Are you married to the girl you are driving home from work or who you happen to be having dinner with? Are you non-conversant in Marathi in Mumbai or in Kannada in Bangalore? Are you a blogger or a journalist who expresses their opinions about politics, culture, media and religion? In spite of your qualifications and the six figure salary, do you have no clout with the local law enforcement or political activists? Before you fall asleep at night you should take a moment to wonder which one of these labels will be tagged onto your identity and turned into a vice or a disqualification; which one of these labels will plant nagging fear into your routine as you go about working to make a living, partying to rid your stress and walking on the streets of a country whose freedom you celebrate once a year on a public holiday. India did fight a freedom struggle years ago and it is high time that yet another quest for independence begins.

As a civilized society, we must remember that curbed freedom is a disease, an epidemic that does not spare a gender or a certain religion. It has uprooted saplings of modern, free thinking from Afghanistan and left it barren under the regime of the Taliban school of thought. This disease feeds on your fear and on the social inertia that has settled over our generation. An active, proud and independent public cannot let this inertia set in. Let it be known that this disease feeds most of all on the little disabling voice in your head which tells you that this is not your struggle, that it isn't your battle to fight. Sadly, this malady spreads, swallowing in its wake our hard-earned progress, until the feeble voice in your head is one day replaced with the grim realization that your own struggle has arrived. The assailant and his prejudice have changed form and you are the next prey. And there is nobody left to fight for you or with you.

Is Karnataka Turning into a Police State?

Roshan Krishnan — Tue, 3 Feb 2009 06:59:01 EST

Bangalore Mirror had an article today on cops busting a party at the Dell office off Koramangala.Here's an excerpt from the article:

" They [the cops] landed at the office and demanded to be let in, but the security guards refused. “The police said they were acting on a complaint from a resident who could not sleep peacefully because of the noise in the party. We told the police that there are no residences in the area, but they were not ready to listen,” another Dell employee present at the party said.

An argument broke out between the police and the guards. After some time, the police forced their way in and seized the audio systems. A few security personnel were taken to the Airport Police Station for questioning. Though no techie was arrested, the employees were warned against holding late night parties "

If this isn't police high handedness, then I don't know what is! I agree that the music shouldn't be so loud that it disturbs the residents around. All that the cops needed to do on receiving such a complaint would have been to send a couple of constable and ask the employees to tone it down a bit. Confiscating the audio system and detaining the security personnel seemed uncalled for and smacks of police high handedness.

As soon as I read this article a couple of thoughts came to me. First of course was, are the cops entitled to do this? After all, the party was in a private property, not a public place. Can they barge in based on a complaint by someone and detain a few people and confiscate property? Second, shouldn't there be some laws in place governing such police acts? I'm no expert, but there must be rules laid down on how cops need to act in such situations. Otherwise it's like we are in a police state where cops can barge in to a private property anytime and confiscate property and arrest people.

I'd really like some legal expert to clarify this. And I hope he or she tells me that it's illegal for cops to do what they did at Dell. Otherwise it would mean that cops can enter any private property at their whims and fancy. I shudder to think what that would mean for ordinary citizens like me. Cops can come barging in my front door any day and confiscate my audio system because they received some complaint from someone. They could arrest me because I had a few friends over on the weekend and we played music past 11.30!!

Where are heading as a state? First the government restricts night life past 11.30. Instead of better policing, cops shut the city down by 11.30 and hope no crime takes place past that time. Then they ban dancing at pubs. They talk about banning pubs altogether now as that's where all the crime in the city happens apparently! Then they get into private property, the DELL office, to shut down a private party. That's important - to SHUTDOWN the party! Not ask the folks there to mellow their music down, but to shut it down and to warn them against late night partying! And next, it could be your home or mine. They could come in asking me not to drink past 11.30 or play music past 11 PM.

Where will this stop? For how much longer do we put up with this? Would we allow the state to dictate what we do inside our homes? Why were the techies warned against partying late night in private property? What business does the state have interfering with such high handedness in matters inside a private property, specially when there wasn't any henious crime or illegalities happening - except maybe for loud music? I'd really want to know if this is legal in India? Do the cops have such powers? Knowing how our police force is currently, I really hope to God that they do not have such powers!

Karnataka is slowly turning into a police state. One by one our freedoms are being restricted. We choose to remain quiet! I don't think people have realized that this will have dangerous consequences for all. We need to do something about such intrusive and unacceptable policing! By the way, I have music playing in my room as I write this. It's past 12.30 now and I'm hoping I don't hear a knock on the door now!

Thekedaars of the Middle-Class?

commonsense — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:49:39 EST

We have all heard of the “my sentiments are hurt” claim to push for a ban on topics that we cannot handle. The long list of such political maneuvers includes but is not limited to Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, the artist M. F. Hussain, Taslima Nasreen etc. Such claims by the thekedaars of so-called religious, regional, linguistic communities are quite obviously irrational and appeal to the lowest common denominator in all of us.

The Gujarat government has gone step ahead by claiming that the sentiments of the state and of its middle-class are “hurt” by the loose canon scholar Ashish Nandy’s op-ed piece published last summer in the Times of India.

Stung by the acerbic piece by penned by Nandy (who by the way, received his PhD from Gujarat), the Gujarat state government has apparently lodged a case against the scholar for apparently implying the middle-class’s addiction to development at any cost, is to blame for Modi’s re-election. Nandy of course, is a self-styled provocateur who passes sweeping, frequently quite off the mark pronouncements in the prophetic mode. He is taken more seriously outside rather than within India. Once in a while he does provide quite interesting insights about Indian society. More often than not, he lashes out at any hint of the term “development” and indeed considers himself as the “thekedaar” of the “real” India and Indians.

The point however is not whether one agrees or disagrees with him as far as his takes on Indian society are concerned.

What is ominous is the government taking a writer to court for imagined injuries to the sentiments of the state and its middle-class. Are we slipping backwards to the era when any critique of state policies was labeled as “treason” and the pressure to conform was enforced by intepreting the law in particular ways? This time around, the Supreme Court of India not only dismissed the case against Nandy but also issued a stern rebuke to those who wanted to prosecute the author.

Where exactly are we headed in the future as far as freedom of critical commentary is concerned? If we disagree with any critical commentary, there is always the option of criticising the critic. If established media outlets won't publish our critiques of critics, there is always the world-wide blogosphere. The proliferation of self-appointed of thekedaars of who seek to address real or imagined injuries, is, at least from a non-sectarian point of view, indeed ominous.

Freedom of Speech

K. M. — Sat, 4 Oct 2008 08:51:48 EDT

Paul McKeever has a post on Freedom and the Proper Regulation of Speech in which he claims that it is the role of government to outlaw speech that denies individuals control over their life, liberty and property. The object of this post is to argue that freedom of speech is indeed absolute.

The right to freedom of speech is a special case of the right to freedom of action - the only right that man has (Look at the first five paragraphs of this post for a detailed argument on why man has the right to freedom of action). It is considered specially by most constitutions because of its importance in maintaining a free society. Given this importance, it is worth considering the concepts underlying the right to free speech.

Speech as a form of action:
Speech is just a form of action. There is nothing about speech that does not apply to other actions. Speech may involve the initiation of physical force. Shouting “Fire!” in a theatre is just as much of an initiation of force as is the breaking of a chair in the same theatre. Both are actions that are not permitted by the owner of the theatre and thus are an initiation of force.

Initiation of force:
Initiation of physical force is the only thing that can curtail man’s freedom of action, and consequently, the only thing that a government must protect. Any “regulation” of speech that does not involve the initiation of force is a violation of the right to freedom of action.

Responsibility of judgement:
Judging the statements or claims made by others is a necessary part of living in a society. Since no one can think for another person, this judgement and its consequences are the sole responsibility of the individual. A liar is morally responsible for his lies but that does not absolve his victims from the responsibility of judgements. Nor does the fact that man is infallible absolve him of that responsibility. It is a fact of nature that man must think, judge and act even though he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Fraud as distinct from lies:
Fraud is the violation of a contract and thus an initiation of force. Not every statement is made within the context of a contract. In fact the vast majority of conversations do not involve any contract at all.

Role of government:
The proper role of government is limited to protecting the right to freedom of action. Ensuring any other form of justice is not its role. Notably, ensuring that rational men do not suffer because of the wrong judgements of others is not the role of government. Governments are instituted because of the necessity of placing the retalliatory use of force under objective control. Any other function that a government performs necessarily involves the initiation of force and is a perversion of the concept of a government.

Impossibility of outlawing lies:
The initiation of physical force (whether direct or the violation of a contract) is an objective standard. There can be no honest disagreement about whether a particular case involves the initiation of physical force in the presence of witnesses or evidence. Truth is often not an objective standard legally nor does it apply to all statements. A statement such as “X is incompetent to complete project Y on time.” is a matter of individual judgement and a prediction about the future. Truth does not apply to it. A statement such as “Candidate X believes in sorcery” cannot be judged objectively as there is no way to either prove or disprove it. A legal system that allows laws without objective standards will soon disintegrate into an arbitrary rule of men.

It should be clear from the above points that freedom of speech is an absolute right just like the right to life and the right to property and may not be violated by a proper government. For the sake of completeness however, I will analyze the flaw in McKeever’s argument and consider his examples.

McKeever writes:

Freedom is control. Specifically, it is control over ones own liberty and property; over the pursuit of ones own survival and happiness. The role of government is to ensure that no other person causes you to lose that control; that no other person deprives you of your freedom.

This is the primary flaw in his argument. Freedom is not control. Man is free by nature. He does not control his own life in the same sense. For example, I do not control whether I get to keep my job. If my employer decides to fire me, is he causing me to lose my control? I do not control my immediate emotions. If a stranger abuses me verbally and I get angry, is he causing me to lose my control? In both these cases I retain my freedom but do I lose my control or did I never have it?

Consider his examples:

By selling you a can of highly corrosive acid labeled “Soda Pop”, a person can deprive you of your life.

This is fraud and has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

By framing you for a crime you did not commit, or by bearing false witness against you, you can be deprived of your liberty.

If he frames me for a crime I did not commit and escapes detection completely so that he is not even required to testify, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If he bears false witness, he is lying intentionally on oath, which is a violation of an explicit contract with the legal system itself. Again it has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

By selling you an ineffective substance as “a new, 100% effective cure for strep throat”, you can be deprived of your property (i.e., the money you paid for the substance).

Fraud again.

Common to each example is the making of false or arbitrary assertions upon which you or others found decisions concerning your life, liberty, or property.

No. Common to each example is the initiation of force.

Racist Web Game Muslim Massacre Taken Down By Developer

Aaman Lamba — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 05:38:07 EDT

The limits of free speech are tested more sorely on the Internet. While protecting the space where wrongs can be criticized freely, and truth can be spoken to power is essential, there are obvious limits to what is appropriate and what needs to be held to account.

Freelance developer Sigvatr found this out the hard way when he released an online game Muslim Massacre in which the protagonist is an "American hero" who lands in the Middle East with the mission of 'wiping out the entire Muslim race', training his guns on Muslim civilians and terrorists, "the Muslim leader Osama bin Laden, their radical cult leader Muhammad and finally Allah" . He went on to defend his actions, saying,

"Ultimately it's just a game where you blow the gently caress out of Arabs...I don't even know how to interpret it myself any more. The bottom line is that I enjoyed making it and it's fun to play.

The Muslims represented in the game aren't meant to be based on actual Muslims. If I was to try and come up with a meaning for the game at this moment, it would probably be something along the lines of metaphorically destroying the stereotypical depiction of a Muslim.

The initial reaction of gamers ranged from "love the audio" and "can you fix the spawn points" to "why would you do this?". Other quarters were less forgiving, calling for the game to be taken down. The developer finally took the game down and cleared the website, posting an apology.

I would like to make a public apology for any offense that I might have caused through releasing this game, and to Muslims in particular. My intentions when releasing this project were to mock the foreign policy of the United States and the commonly held belief in the United States that Muslims are a hostile people to be held with suspicion. I would like to make it clear that I have never shared such a belief and my intention was to mock those who actually do believe these things.

It quickly became obvious to me that releasing this game did not achieve its intended effect and instead only caused hurt to hospitable, innocent people. I believe removing this game and website will do much more to attain my desired effect than leaving it on the internet, so I am doing just that.

I would like to ask for the forgiveness of Muslims around the world and to make it clear that I did not release this game with ill intent. So without further ado, I would like to say that I am truly apologetic for what I have done and will take full responsibility for all offense that has been caused. I can only hope that any further misgivings can be laid to rest.

While there can be no doubt as to the offensive nature of the game, and self-censorship was the right step in this case, it is likely there will be renewed calls for blanket censorship on games and the like, a policy which is difficult to enforce, and which prefers to err on the side of caution, and thereby limiting potentially important creative efforts.

Islamophobia - Organisation of Islamic Countries Report

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:21:02 EDT

Islamophobia exists and is steadily getting worse. A phobia is a strong irrational or powerful fear and dislikes of something, in this case, the religion of Islam. This phobia has attained such strong levels, that the Organisation of Islamic Countries has commissioned and recently released an Annual Report on Islamophobia. On reading the report, I was torn between two feelings; the first was serious concern about Islamophobia in the world and second was sheer bewilderment at the OIC as to how they help propagate the very Islamophobia that they want to eliminate.

I have spoken about Islamophobia before and have been warning about its prevalence for some time now. And regretfully, the situation is far from improving; instead it is getting worse. One can see that just looking at the rise in terrorist attacks and hate crimes, lurid headlines, anti-Semitic attacks in Europe in retaliation, etc. And the more this happens; the less the space becomes for moderates on both sides.

As I warned before, the world knows about the demonisation of a minority and knows what happens if that monster is let loose. We have seen that behaviour against Jews, Muslims, Christians, Blacks, Browns, Yellows, Hindus, Irish, English, Tutsi, you name it, it has happened. If there is a minority, the chances are that phobias, discrimination, genocide etc. against them have been in play.

So if you look at the report, the worry is clear. Muslims around the world are definitely in the cross-hairs of a variety of people. And you can very well see that in the pronouncements of some of the wilder variety of some politicians across the world; the subtle demonisation of Muslims in the mainstream, tabloid, and online media; and the increase in attacks on Muslims (or even Sikhs who these attackers thought that they looked like Muslims).

So yes, that definitely needs to be sorted out. From what I understand, the OIC asked for an annual report on Islamophobia to be tabled at the annual sessions of the OIC. The authors of this report are not clear nor are the terms of reference of this report.

But first the good points in the document. Yes, there are some good points in there. For example, the authors have collected a good selection of Islamophobia research sources. A reasonably good selection of political Islamophobic statements has also been collected in Section 2.1 and they have also done a good survey on what people have done to combat Islamophobia from a governmental, NGO and individual perspectives in section 1.6.

They also talk about how inter-faith initiatives have been established, which can at best improve inter-faith relations and at worst, not do any harm. The majority of the recommendations in the conclusion of Part I that they made to combat Islamophobia are quite bang on target and make pretty good sense. They should be read by anybody who is interested in this rather dreadful phenomenon. Section 1.5 specially is a very good overview of the situation of Muslims in Europe and USA, although some inconsistencies should have been addressed in a better way, such as praising Pope Benedict XVI in Section 3.5, but fulminating against him on page 3.

Looking at the document, I would conclude that this was done by some under-graduates from a 3rd grade university hidden in a country-side somewhere, who have no idea about modern life and have suddenly stumbled upon the internet with their first lesson being Google search. As a result, this document starts off with the best of intentions and ends up rather fanning Islamophobia instead of helping to reduce it. It suffers from the following major defects:

Total misunderstanding of the basic principle of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to irritate and upset others. Freedom of speech does not include the right to discriminate against others though. For example, I can take the mickey out of suicide bombers wanting virgins and ending up with raisins. Or you can call me an infidel and say your religion is better than mine. These are completely acceptable, I have no issues. But you cannot tell others to kill me nor can I tell others to kill you. That is incitement to violence. The author seems to have deep intellectual issues in understanding this basic matter.
Confusing racism with Islamophobia. Race belongs to a genetic category generally exhibited on the basis of a physical appearance. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Two totally different things. While in certain cases (such as black Muslims), they might blow over into being the same, but to confuse both of them as one shows muddled thinking. Muslims are not a race, and they do include a variety of different races and ethnic groups.
Methodological and terminological confusion, which emerges from seriously flawed selection of incidents and coverage of incidents. Almost 50% of the incidents noted in the Appendix are not Islamophobic in nature, but belong to the category of freedom of speech or simple crime category. Islamophobia exists already without trying to add to it.
A totally wrong emphasis on legal protections. They try to go deep into legal aspects of various conventions and institutions. But you see, those are already established, anti-discrimination laws exist, anti-violence laws exist anti-incitement laws exist and they are sufficient. For example, they are talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and completely forget that they themselves have repudiated it and have come up with a Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Here’s an idea! How about the OIC signing up to and transcribing to domestic law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as most of the rest of the world has done?
Be very careful about complaining about being a victim, because it only stands up when you yourself have not victimised someone else. Now if you look at the OIC minorities, one can come up with many examples of victimisation that they themselves have done. And we are talking about Muslims victimising Muslims here, forget about non-Muslims. Ranging from Shia, Sunni, Ahmadi, Baha’i, Ismaili, Darfurians and then all the way to the other side like Jews, Christians, Hindus Buddhists, etc. have been victimised in OIC countries. Now, consider the reaction if such a report on anti-Baha'i or anti-Shia or anti-Semitic discrimination is presented at the OIC? How about considering the fact that many if not most current anti-Semitic attacks in Europe are carried out by European Muslims?
A totally imbalanced view of history. This entire report was so imbalanced in terms of its historical coverage that one does not even know where to start. What about the entry of Islam into the Caucasian world? Or the Chinese area? How about how it managed the entry and existence in South Asia and Africa? Islam has perhaps victimised more in many countries and regions than had been victimised against. Perhaps this is why their geographical scope of the report is so muddled (to avoid any facts which destroy their argument?)
Significant challenges in the identification of the causes of Islamophobia. First of all, there is not one form of Islam; it is not a single view, sect or a monolith. More importantly it is not the role of the state to define it. So if you are an Ahmadi or a Shia or a Sunni or what have you, we simply do not care! If you have religious differences, then by all means, discuss them, but do not kill for those differences. For example, the list of seven points raised by the Runnymede Trust defining Islamophobia can, unfortunately be equally applied to anti-Semitism, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Shia… in OIC countries, where they will be totally applicable. Consequently, ALL root causes of Islamophobia as identified in section 1.4.1 are completely wrong and misallocated.
A clear misunderstanding of the role of the media and the level of control people can actually exert over them. Most - if not all - of the OIC have no or very little press freedom. On top of that, the Arab League, a subset of the OIC, has decided to take fuller control over their TV Media since February 2008. That is not how the media works in other countries. Do check out independent organisations such as Reporters without Borders.
Israel – Palestine conflict. This is something that I can never understand. Curiously, more than 3/4th of all dead Palestinians have been killed by their fellow Arabs compared to the numbers killed by Israelis, but besides that breathtaking hypocrisy, I still cannot understand why they would include it in here. Or exclude say something like Bangladesh and Sudan? Pretty bizarre and intellectually vacuous.

Islamophobia exists, hate crimes have seriously stated happening in many countries and that is something to be worried about. All parts of civil society have to take part in ensuring that this canker of Islamophobia does not emerge from the dark evil corners of our souls. This includes you and me, the media, NGOs, churches and mosques, the government and international organisations, etc. But this has to happen for the right reasons, not for the spectacularly wrong and intellectually vapid reasons as stated in this report. All this will end up doing (and has already done) is to provide ammunition to the right wing that the OIC, as the premier Islamic organisation, takes decisions based upon policy papers which a zoned out undergraduate would hesitate to submit. And by the way, try to understand the concept of free speech. People who are out there trying to control free speech are basically engaging in Neanderthal behaviour and should not be upset if their speech is ignored, unheard or even mis-understood.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!

Technorati Tags: Organisation of Islamic Countries, Islam, Islamophobia, Israel, Palestine, Bangladesh, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Anti-Semitism

Art + History = Police Action in Tamil Nadu

Amrita Rajan — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:36:27 EDT

Here's a bit of shocking information: remember Aurangzeb? That jolly old Mughal who imprisoned various family members including his dad and his son, killed his brothers and generally went about making himself pleasant to his populace through the means of banning things like music and killing Sikh gurus? Yeah, that one. Turns out, according to his own records, he wasn’t a nice person to know.

You know what’s even more shocking? If you mention his dastardly nature (oh, come on! Even Stalin laid off his own family!) in Tamil Nadu, the police will come and shut you down.

That's right, Tamilians, this is how your tax money is being spent - on closing art exhibits.

To rewind a bit, if you're like me and have never heard of Francois Gautier before today (for some reason - like a lack of French - I don’t read Le Figaro or pretty much any of the publications he’s written for apparently), he’s an Indophile French journalist who founded this organization called the Foundation Against Continuing Terrorism. According to its website, “FACT seeks to bring attention to forgotten or neglected crises and to pressure governments and international organizations to help and protect refugees, displaced people and other victims of terror based conflicts.” Currently, it seems to be concentrating its efforts on Kashmiri Pandits and the minority Hindus, Christians and Buddhists in Bangladesh.

To highlight its work and the plight of the people it champions, FACT periodically holds exhibitions and other events around the world. For its latest exhibition, FACT came to the conclusion that the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, who died in 1707, was pretty much the poster boy of Islamic terror as we know it today because he was a Sunni fundamentalist whose favorite hobby was temple demolition.

Personally, I think that’s a simplistic and rather contrived view of a fascinating character whose psychosis has never been adequately explored to my satisfaction… but that’s not the point here. FACT claims they dug through official Government archives, most notably in Rajasthan, and came up with original court documents including imperial edicts that beautifully illustrated just what it was like to live under the crazed eyes of a fanatically religious, all-powerful Emperor. They then commissioned Rajasthani artists who specialized in miniatures to translate those events into watercolor works and drawings in the Mughal style. The result of all this was an exhibit titled “Aurangzeb, as he was, according to Moghul records” which premiered in Delhi in February of this year.

Whatever my opinion of the tenor of some of Gautier’s writings, not to mention his naivete in imagining that Indo-Muslim relations on the subcontinent is comparable to Franco-German relations after the Second World War, I think this is a fascinating concept. I’m all for the marriage of art, history and politics. An intellectual menage a trois! But not everybody would agree with me - take the Nawab of Arcot, for instance. In Gautier’s words:

[He] visited the exhibition and lashed out at FACT volunteers accusing them of “misrepresenting facts.” He was particularly enraged by two miniatures — the first depicted Aurangzeb’s army destroying the Somnath temple and the second showed the destruction of the Kesava Rai temple in Mathura. We are told that he has direct access to the CM’s office and that orders to the police to clamp down on exhibition came down from there. Otherwise, Mr Murali [ed note: Asst. Commissioner of Police] would not have dared to go so far, so brazenly.

Soon, the nawab sent a group of goons, allegedly from TMMK (Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam) and MNP (Manitha Neethi Paasarai) to pick up arguments with the volunteers, most of them elderly women from decent family backgrounds.

They came back again on 7th afternoon when I was there, screaming on, top of their voices in Tamil and in English that this exhibition was absolutely false and that unless it was closed immediately they would come back in force the next day (Friday) to break it down.

I didn’t even know Arcot had a Nawab or that he was such an authority on history and a vociferous art critic to boot. As it turns out, there’s not only a Nawab of Arcot but his feelings for Aurangzeb might well be personal:

More than 300 years ago, his ancestor Zulfikar Ali Khan was summoned from Mecca by Emperor Aurangazeb in order to fight against the Marathas. In the 17th Century when the Marathas were holding sway in the Southern Carnatic from their stronghold at Gingee, Zulfikar Ali Khan came down and inflicted a crushing defeat on the ruler Rajaram.

The delighted Mughal emperor made him the Nawab of the Carnatic under the suzerainty of the Nizam of Hyderabad and thus were sown the beginnings of the House of Arcot. Later holders of the title identified closely with their area of domicile. The cordial interaction between the Nawabs of Arcot and the Hindu inhabitants of the Tamil country generated a climate of mutual tolerance and secularism that is proudly being carried on to this day.

Hmmm, I guess that does present a problem. But what, precisely, has the Nawab achieved through his actions? He’s pulled his strings and played his cards to such remarkable effect that an art exhibition that apparently only appealed Chennai grandmas suddenly turned controversial. And in the process he has managed to gain a reputation far removed from all that “tolerance and secularism” discussed in that article. Well done, sir!

It might be a cliche but it bears repeating: tolerance is an easy virtue to preach when it’s somebody else’s problem. It becomes a lot harder when you’re the one that has to do the tolerating.

From time to time I come across people who think Aurangzeb’s misdeeds are some sort of deep dark secret that secular India refuses to acknowledge. As I attended school in India (not that long ago either) and distinctly remember a litany of crimes set down next to Aurangzeb’s name in my government-approved history textbook, I honestly have no clue what these people are talking about. Maybe they went to school and slept through seventh grade history (or was it eighth?) but I was wide awake and taking it all in, thanks. Now I wonder if they were perhaps talking about people like the Nawab who apparently live in their own state of denial.

Pssst… Nawab sahib! Guess what? The secret’s out! We know all about ol’ Grandpappy Aurangzeb.

But the Nawab is not alone. Of late, it has become the fashion all over India to criticize art for having a political or historical viewpoint. And with increasing frequency, it isn't enough to merely protest a piece of art - it becomes "necessary" to vandalize and destroy that which one does not appreciate. Ironic, isn't it, that an exhibit on a long dead emperor commonly reviled for his illiberality has now been suspended by illiberal forces under the guise of liberalism?

On another note, when on earth do we stop obsessing about things that happened centuries ago and start obsessing even half as much about present day India? I love history but I can make a distinction between past and present - why is it that so many people refuse to do the same? Talking to some folks, it’s as if Mahmud of Ghazni marched through their homes just yesterday or else he was their BFF. What’s the deal here? Do you have something against reality in general or do you feel your life lacks drama? Because, you know, there is no dearth of things to get upset/upbeat about in the present.

Gautier talks about sparking “a healthy debate among the right thinking people” - it seems to me the right thinking people in India never get a chance to debate anything because all the wrong thinking people jump in feet first with fists flying.

More: The Aurangzeb Exhibition

Indian Secularism and Free Speech: Not for the Hindu

Vivek Bharat — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 01:11:49 EDT

FACT is an acronym for Foundation Against Continuing Terrorism, an organization founded by Francois Gautier, a French journalist based in India who shares a deep empathy for the sufferings of the Hindu, both past and present. This compassion stems not from a blind fascination but is an informed considered judgment derived from a close reading of Indian history. Troubled by the inexplicable apathy of the Hindus vis-à-vis their own past torment, this Frenchman has taken upon himself the duty to educate Indians, through a series of exhibitions, about the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits, the oppression of Hindus in Bangladesh and more recently the fiend, Aurangzeb.

‘Aurangzeb as he was, according to Moghul records” is the title of a collection of paintings highlighting the atrocities of this tyrant and has been exhibited to much acclaim in the cities of Delhi, Pune and Bangalore. FACT-sponsored exhibitions are not crude street shows but sophisticated exercises in true history telling anointed by the likes of Shri Shri Ravi Shankar, KPS Gill, N. Vittal and B. Raman. Whether we agree with their views or not we must admit that these individuals are upright citizens of our country who would think twice before associating themselves with dubious ventures.

The same exhibition was hosted in Chennai at the prestigious Lalit Kala Akademi, and was scheduled to run from March 3- March 9. But on March 5, a group of Islamic fundamentalists barged into the exhibition, objected to the show, created a ruckus and threatened to storm the place with hundreds of supporters after Friday prayers from the mosque nearby. A day later, the Prince of Arcot, Nawab Mohammed Abdul Ali visited the exhibition and claimed that FACT was misrepresenting history. In the words of Kanchan Gupta (Artistic freedom yes, but not with Aurangzeb, Daily Pioneer, March 9, 2008):

"He was particularly enraged by two miniatures -- the first depicted Aurangzeb's army destroying the Somnath temple and the second showed the destruction of the Kesava Rai temple in Mathura.

By Thursday, March 7, "higher authorities" in Tamil Nadu Government had issued instructions to the police to shut down the exhibition. Murali, (Asst Commissioner of Police) along with his men, stormed into the exhibition hall on Thursday evening and began taking down the paintings. "He was looking for the paintings showing the destruction of Somnath and Kesava Rai temples. He threw them to the floor," said a FACT volunteer."

This sequence of events raises the disturbing specter of how Islamic fundamentalists in concert with vested interests can suppress the dissemination of authentic history and thwart a basic tenet of democracy: the principle of free speech.

Aurangzeb was a confirmed bigot vetted by historians of every hue and persuasion. There is not a shred of evidence to proclaim his innocence or any shadow of doubt about the religious oppression that he unleashed against his Hindu subjects. But yet we have a Muslim community taking up cudgels on his behalf. This only serves to give you a glimpse into the mindset of certain sections of India’s Muslim population who remain in a time wrap of past Muslim glory which was marked by the destruction of hundreds of Hindu temples and massacre of thousands of innocent Hindus and who continue to revere religious despots like Aurangazeb.

The two miniatures referred to above are hardly controversial; the events depicted having been corroborated by Aurangzeb’s own words and the works of his own sanctioned chroniclers. As proof of the same:

a) "... The Temple of Somnath was demolished early in my reign and idol worship(there) put down. It is not known what the state of things there is at present. If the idolators have again taken to the worship of images at the place, then destroy the temple in such a way that no trace of the building maybe left, and also expel them (the worshippers) from the place. ..." (From "Kalimat-i-Tayyibat" by 'Inayatullah, a collection of letters and orders of Aurangzeb compiled by 'Inayatullah in AD 1719 and covering the years 1699-1704 of Aurangzeb's reign.)

b) “During this month of Ramzan abounding in miracles, the Emperor as the promoter of justice and overthrower of mischief, as the knower of truth and destroyer of oppression, as the zephyr of the garden of victory and the reviver of the faith of the Prophet,issued orders for the demolition of the temple situated in Mathura, famous as the Dehra of Kesho Rai. In the short time by the great exertions of his officers the destruction of this strong foundation of infidelity was accomplished and on its site a lofty mosque was built at the expenditure of a large sum..." ( from "Mas'ir-i-'Alamgiri" by Saqi Must'ad Khan. This work was completed in 1710 at the behest of Inayatu''llah Khan Kashmiri, Aurangzeb's last secretary and the materials which Must'ad Khan used in this history of Aurangzeb's reign came mostly from the State archive)

The Tamil Nadu government, by succumbing to the pressure of Islamic fundamentalists without ascertaining the facts has not only shown poor judgment but exhibited an eagerness to appease fundamentalists. More importantly, this brings to the fore the anti-Hindu agenda of the DMK run Tamil Nadu government that has repeatedly trampled on Hindu sentiments. Just a few months ago, the DMK supremo Karunanidhi let loose a vituperative tirade against the Hindu deity Shri Ram in the context of the Ramsethu controversy and the manner in which the assistant commissioner of police responded to his ‘call of duty’ in this matter is another example of the deep seated antipathy towards Hindus and Hinduism that some in this state harbor.

What was even more striking was the total blackout of this incident from the mainstream English media. Except for the Daily Pioneer, none of the major Indian newspapers including the Indian Express, Hindustan Times, and Times of India thought it fit to report the event. The Hindu did print a few lines but that was to commend the closure of the exhibition: so much for these so- called bastions of free speech.

Compare this with the quantum of newsprint and number of editorials that followed when Hindu groups disrupted an exhibition at Baroda University last year: the contrast is striking and double standards all too obvious.

And what about those self-appointed champions of human rights like Teesta Setalvad and Shabana Azmi? Surprisingly I do not hear even a murmur of protest from them: another testimony to the fact that their activism is not a fair effort to promote human values but a devious conspiracy to target Hindus.

I cannot but infer that Indian secularism is warped. Indian secularism is discriminatory. Indian secularism is nothing but a tool to muzzle the practicing Hindu. It is a synonym for minority appeasement and Hindu bashing. Until we change this attitude and apply the same yardstick to one and all we cannot hope for a truly civilized democracy in India.

References:
1) Destruction of Hindu Temples by Rajiv Verma
2) Kanchan Gupta: "Artistic freedom yes, but not with Aurangzeb", Daily Pioneer, March 9, 2008

YouTube, Idol Worship and Fanaticism

Desh — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:32:13 EST

Pakistan's government does not want its people to watch Youtube. Why? Because it has some videos on the Prophet cartoon story. So, they think their youngsters shouldn't be seeing anything on thevideo site including some of the most wonderful videos that can be informative.

The madness in closing your mind seems empowering in immediate term but is debilitating thereafter.

I am not sure why the Muslims over the centuries do not want to see an image of their Prophet or their God, but I assume its genesis would have been in the negatives of idol worship. And that, in turn, would be in the principle that if you start "capturing" a God in an idol you are basically negating the boundless-ness of God-consciousness.

However, who ever came up with this Islamic formulation did not understand another side of the idol worship story: form and name are immaterial - characteristics that you associate with the form or name are more important.

Another way to look at it: Name and Form are NOT different either. If you have a name for something.. you have already created a form in your mind. Description preceeds a name. Description is the verbal FORM of a physical representation. So if someone has a name for God and asserts that he does not want to have a "physical form" is, politely putting, hallucinating!

Then, does form - idol, painting or just a name or description matter? Our thoughts have already restricted the "God" in any case.

In fact, a person who creates an Idol and worships the deity by nevertheless saying that notwithstanding the restrictions of my small mind - You are boundless and Infinite - is probably more honest in his acceptance of an Infinite God than a person who tries his best to restrict that Infinite Entity by ascribing motives to "His" actions and extrapolating to "Him" the weaknesses of a human mind and still seeking to destroy the idols with a vengeance!

At least the Idol Worshipper who - mindfully - interacts with his God by ascribing Infiniteness is pointing to the obvious problem that human existence brings along - we cannot possibly "imagine" Infinity" in the real sense. He is admitting it to start off with but has found a "workaround".

Of course, the issue occurs when this workaround becomes the sine qua non of holiness and God realization.

But this is the problem with religion, priests, prophets and saints. They come up with "Philosophies for Dummies" series by trying to come up with simplified stuff and that simplification, instead of being "cues" becomes THE reality for the followers. So, while the beginnings of "not recommending" Idol Worship were probably more spiritual in intent, banning it and being fanatic about such a ban took on a decidedly superstitious route.

Similarly on the other hand, using an idol for a concentrated session of meditation may be extremely helpful, while you chant - knowingfully - verses describing the infiniteness of the entity's reality; but restricting the same entity to just that idol can be very debilitating and another route to superstition.

Therefore, in my book, both are superstitions - unmindful Idol Worship and Fanatical opposition to it.

A fanatical and a restless mind can never be at peace with itself or be one with the infinite. A mind that has an ideal or a belief to live upto has to constantly measure itself against the pole of an arbitrary prescription as opposed to the boundless-ness of the Infinite. That noise of constant, restrictive and useless evaluation creates fanaticism and restlessness taking the person FAR away from where the Truth really lies.