Self proclaimed nouveau liberals from urban India have stretched the argument of fundamental rights a little too far by justifying whatever they do on the rights enshrined in the Indian constitution. Rights, as i have always maintained, are subject to duties, which must be fulfilled by the citizens of a country. Moreover, all rights enshrined in our constitution have caveats and limits attached to them; and these must be respected.
Complete and unfettered freedom to do whatever a man wants, defeats the very purpose of society and the concept of nationhood. To live in society means the abrogation of some freedoms to guard against mans baser instincts. A question that these nouveau liberals from urban India need to ask themselves is whether they want to be a part of society or not; and how far are they willing to stretch the argument of fundamental rights without exercising the limits set out in the constitution?
In fact, our pseudo-liberals at the Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF) have handled the Rushdie episode in an utterly imbecilic manner. I expected nothing better from them to start with, so i'm not surprised at all; and the direction of their displeasure is completely off the mark. In the event that they felt that the Supreme Court had misinterpreted the Constitution and the Indian penal code, they should have, instead of misdirecting their angst towards aggrieved constituencies, have taken on the apex court of our land for upholding the ban on the Satanic Verses in the first place. The next step could have been lobbying for change in the Constitution and the Indian penal code, both with the citizens of our country, as well as with our lawmakers.
I am proud of the Indian Constitution and believe in it; and unless the Supreme Court of India passes a judgement to the contrary, i support the minorities who are well within their rights to ask that the book, or its passages not be read within our country. In doing so, they are doing nothing more that echoing the apex court's verdict. Having said this, i do believe that Rushdie has a right to travel to India, even if his book has been banned; and it is wrong to threaten him with his life since it is only his book that has been banned from our country, and not him. In fact, threatening someone's life is as boneheaded as the bunch of pseudo-liberal morons at the JLF.
With the Supreme Court being so proactive these days, perhaps it would have been prudent for them to have stepped into the fracas to set a precedent by allowing Rushdie a safe passage to India, with a written assurance from him that any reference to the Satanic Verses or any kind of rabble rousing, while at the JLF, would be construed as a punishable offence, leading to a jail sentence. This way, Rushdie could have visited the JLF, and the sentiments of the minorities could have been appeased to a reasonable extent.
As far as urban India's pseudo-liberals are concerned, they need to do some really serious and hard thinking on the essence of society and nationhood. Breaking free from boundaries and believing in a One World is a wonderful ideal, which may yet come true. However, even within this boundaryless One-World, for human beings to live together amicably in society, rights cannot be absolute; they will be bound by duties, caveats and limits. And citizens will be required to follow them to keep the fabric of a global society intact. Complete freedom, as i have written on many occasions, is available only in the jungle. The choice is ours.
~
January 29, 2012
It seems that i had misinterpreted the ban on Rushdie's book - The Satanic Verses. I have learned that it is only the book's import that has been banned in India, and not its publication. If that is true, then it was definitely the duty of the Indian State, via the Rajasthan Police' assistance, to protect Rushdie during the intended term of his visit, if they had credible intelligence that his life was under threat.
This, however, does not change the fact that for a society to sustain itself, rights afforded to its members can never be absolute, whether the social structure in question is as small as a family, as profitable as an organization, or as necessary as a country.
I look at rights as variables that lie on an 'absolute rights - no rights' continuum; the direction and placement of these variables on the continuum is debatable. But what is quite certain to me is that for the variables to lie on either extreme of the continuum, is infeasible, unsustainable, and contrary to the idea of society.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment