What we have witnessed in the recent days has left us deeply saddened. We, who shoot verbal barbs regularly, can’t understand why persons far more responsible and presumably erudite prefer crude abuse to all other forms of communication. ‘Hard words’, to borrow the euphemism employed in defence of the Congress candidate from Saharanpur in UP, are exchanged by politicians not in fit of anger but with malice aforethought with a design to enflame communal passions or threaten opponents with criminal intent. And when campaign manager of the BJP candidates talks of ‘revenge’, another nightmare seems to be in the making. Law that comes down heavily to tame and silence ordinary citizen on occasions like these seems truly impaired visually.
No, our depression has nothing to do with the communal rants of a bully in the badlands of wild west of Uttar Pradesh who for all his unaccounted wealth remains a minion only following orders or the ‘hit’ scored by a ‘master strategist’ specialising in ‘pre-emptive retaliation’. It is the manner in which members of the High Command try to gloss over brazen criminality by simply issuing a statement disapproving such bad language. Not an iota of difference is made anywhere. Rahul Gandhi did not cancel his scheduled rally in Saharanpur; on the contrary, rubbing salt in injury, he shared the dais with the wife of defamed and detained Imran Masood. The pattern has been repeated ad nauseum.
Nothing happened when Salman Khurshid dared the Election Commission (EC) to punish him during the state elections in Uttar Pradesh—a perfunctory apology is enough most of the time to placate the ruffled feathers in the EC precincts. Hindi is not the mother tongue of Sonia Gandhi and perhaps she should not to be blamed for starting the no-holds-barred battle with her maut ke saudagar broadside, but surely it’s not too much to expect that she gets vetted whatever is spelt or spilled out by her speechwriters; but Khurshid can’t be allowed to get away with abuse in vernacular or Sanskrit and explaining what he meant by brandishing the OED and Roget’s Thesaurus. What is accepted as friendly slang among close friends can’t be used with gay abandon targeting political opponents who aren’t pally with you. And, when one hears khoon se range haath, one begins to wonder if the Congress wordsmiths wouldn’t be more gainfully employed in Ramsay Brothers studios embellishing ‘B’ and ‘C’ grade horror movies?
It is not our contention that all political discourse—particularly during elections—should be bowdlerised and rendered suitable for children’s films. Witty and humorous rapier thrusts have their place within and outside Parliament. Not all that is expunged within the House is banned usage on the streets. Rakshas, Bhasmasur, Ravan, Vibheeshan, et al can be considered offensive terms of abuse only by those whose familiarity with India’s myths and epics is confined to fading memories of Amar Chitra Katha. By no stretch of imagination can a phrase like chor ki darhi mein tinka be considered synonymous with branding someone a thief. Poor Jairam Ramesh has often caught the flak for ‘abusing opponents’ when all he has been trying to do is to add some colour to a drab graphics, inviting listener’s imagination to take over. It’s true that Mani Shankar Aiyar does get carried away with secular fanaticism, but what must be conceded is that when he puts his foot in the mouth he does so elegantly. The same can’t be said of Digvijaya Singh or others.
What should not be lost sight of in the cacophony of blame game is that a sharp line must be drawn between defamatory insults and inflammatory statements with transparent criminal intent. Laws of libel that provide remedy to aggrieved party should be resorted to and the law must be allowed to ‘take its course’. But when someone is fanning communal prejudice and threatening law and order, there should be zero tolerance, regardless of the party affiliations of the accused or his social status. In cases of politicians or ‘religious leaders’ spewing venom in public meetings (caught on camera), the defence of ‘quoted out of context’ or ‘framed by opponents’ is simply unacceptable. A small spark can start a devastating conflagration. Once rioting starts, it becomes impossible to arrest or punish the guilty. The priority understandably is restoration of peace followed by relief and rehabilitation.
All of us know that law and order is the responsibility of the state government. Air is always thick with accusations and counter-accusations hurled by partisan critics. Perhaps the time has come to treat ‘hate speeches’ differently from other irresponsible challenges to EC’s authority—like the gauntlet thrown by Mamata. These threaten the unity and integrity of India. Nothing can be draconian enough to curb this menace. The temptation to ‘polarise’ the electorate to ‘rob the vote bank’ can only have disastrous consequences for the nation.
pushpeshpant@yahoo.com
Pushpesh Pant is a former professor of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi