Let’s leave aside the topic of reservation please. It is not relevant to this topic and I don’t want to go down that rat-hole on this blog post.

Actually, the Government has to also live within the Constitution. Just because it is the GOI doesn’t mean it can violate the Constitution and the Supreme Court is there to ensure that.

Yes, someone has the right to speak and others have the right to not hear - as you say above. But if someone is offended, their choice is only to choose not to listen. They do not have the prerogative to prevent the speaker from speaking. The GOI, unfortunately for them, also must adhere to these rules. Or they can try to change the Constitution. As they often try to do. Violating the Constitutional rights of some to protect the “hurt sentiments” of others is bunkum.

Hopefully this clarifies my stand on why I find Neo’s ads distasteful but yet find the GOIs actions even worse. Krishna’s Voltaire quote is the best summary: “I disapprove of what you say but I shall defend with my life your right to say it”.

Further, you may want to read my last few lines again. Govt is the constitutional body hence has the right to act, whereas so called religious outfits are non-constitutional bodies.

I donot claim expertise in Demoracy but I doubt if people understand Constitution either. Pls note, I am not making sweping statement, its only in context of raising hue and cry about Fundamental rights. Well point is if someone has right to speak, others also have right not to hear what they donot want to… And if there is a conflict then who does the arbitration ? Some regulatory constituional body…isn’t it ?

The ACLU in the US is a great example of this. Many of their lawyers were Jewish and they vehemently opposed Nazism. However, they fought for the right of the US Nazis to march through predominantly Black/Jewish neighbourhoods. All because they believe the right to free speech and expression is paramount and trumps whatever “feelings” of loathing one might feel for another (Voltaire “I disapprove of what you say but I shall defend with my life your right to say it”)

A botched and clumsy attempted cure can be worse than the disease
Let’s say, for example, I believe that someone’s being an idiot. I can either (a) slap him or (b) educate him. While I “feel” he may deserve (a), I would violate his basic rights and therefore I should do (b)

Just because one “feels” something doesn’t give one the right to restrict fundamental rights. While I too felt the ad had a slightly racist tinge, that doesn’t mean that I can destroy the constitutional right to free speech. The Indian Government, in its pandering to the lowest common denominator, does just that

It’s unfortunate that experts on democracy like you don’t seem to be experts on the constitution too. Democracy functions only within a framework of laws. But a expert democrat like you already knew that…

I somehow feel, none of us understand what democracy is. Expecially all of us who most of the time sit in AC rooms, seem to have developed a tendency to comment on almost anything and everything; and believe democary is all about different opinions, counter opinions and more counter opinions. We somehow donot like any check or regulation. Pls note it is Democray and not a synony of In-discipline of any sorts.

I would have perhaps agreed with you if some religious fanatic organization would have done something in reaction to this. It would have been worth deploring because nobody can become self-styled ruler/regulator. But Govt ?? in this case. Arey its their job..otherwise who will do the moderation ??

On the press, I generally agree with Jefferson (an intellectual Titan) “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”. Unfortunately as he also said “Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”

With the large illiterate and the literate apathetics, we need to rely on TV- I belive the best solution would be someone like NDTV inviting Mr. Munshi (et al) to an open debate on censorship. With skilled opponents, Mr. Munshi and his fellow censors should be reduced to a quivering mass in short order (one can dream!)

While a “sathyagraha”- where a real journey to truth would require the mass purchase of all these banned books, isn’t really practical. I think censorship is an instance where people of conscience must actively violate an immoral law

My bigger fear is that the press in India is no longer “free”- an insidious trend of self-censorship is on the rise- maybe due to past interest group pressures. For example, when the Danish cartoons were published, no news outlet in India even had the guts to take a stand supporting free speech(much less actually publishing the cartoons). Only an engaged populace (and brave editors) can help

@ Krishna - I agree that it is intellectual cowardice. But I feel they are equal cowards towards all religions (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc.)

A Government currently constituted by (accused)murderers, thieves, and polygamists is trying to dictate morality to a BILLION PEOPLE? And who appointed them my moral policemen? My parents and my religion did a good enough job, thank you! I don’t need a Karunanidhi, a Shibu Soren, or a Laloo to tell me what I should do!

These “secularists” banned the Satanic Verses before any Islamic Country did, banned the Da Vinci code which not even Italy did….. What, don’t have the guts to engage in intellectual discourse- if the questions are tough, shoot the questioner?

Until we kick these morons imposing their hypocritical standards on us out of every country in the world (starting with its biggest democracy), there is little hope for the survival of free speech