Thespian Kamal Haasan recently commented on the origins of the Tamil and Kannada languages, sparking a significant controversy. The Karnataka High Court reprimanded the actor for an opinion he expressed, remarking that the actor has no right to hurt the sentiments of the people. A social media influencer named Sharmishta Panoli has been arrested for alleged ‘hate speech’ against a community, and the Calcutta High Court has denied bail to the young social media influencer, saying freedom of speech doesn’t mean hurting the sentiments of others. Sometime back, a BJP member, Nupur Sharma, was castigated by the courts for her opinion on Islam. A professor at Ashoka University was chastised for his remarks on Operation Sindoor. A tasteless, but not in any way dangerous, remark by the popular podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia was enough to get him scolded in harsh words by the court. The pattern is unsettling.
The Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal judgement clearly held that mere “annoyance”, “inconvenience”, or the causing of “offence” cannot form the basis of criminalising speech. Expressions that “offend, shock or disturb” are constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a) and that any restriction must pass the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2). Free speech does not only include palatable or popular opinion, but also extends to speech that provokes, unsettles, or challenges. But now, it seems all such judgements are no longer taken as precedent.
It appears that we have devolved into a crude society where one can only express remarks that are popular, or risk being arrested. Many social reformers, including Swami Vivekananda, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Mahatma Phule, Dr. Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Sree Narayana Guru, Periyar, and Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were vociferous critics of evils such as the caste system, untouchability, Sati, and child marriage, which were once considered essential parts of the religion. They lived under an oppressive colonial government and were free to criticise in the harshest language and express their opinions freely.
Seeing the brutality of the caste system in Malabar, Swami Vivekananda had called Kerala a madhouse. Had he been living in the present day, his remarks would have hurt the sentiments of some Malayali, and multiple FIRs, arrest warrants, and court cases would have been filed against him. Courts may have come down harshly on him for ‘dog whistling’ and may have constituted an enquiry committee to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in his posts” about the Malayalis.
His passport might have been seized, and thus, we might have lost the famous speech of Vivekananda in the World Parliament of Religions. In VS Godbole’s book, Rationalism of Veer Savarkar, there are several passages on his opinion on cow worship that may land him in trouble had he expressed them now. Fortunately for us, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, Ambedkar, Savarkar, and others lived in a different era, under foreign colonial rule.
How can one predict what will hurt the sentiments of someone or another? Anyone can claim that his or her sentiment is hurt because of some statement or act of another person. Is there a sentiment meter that has been developed to measure how much sentiment is hurt over some social media post or a remark in an interview by random individuals? Is your religion, language, and culture of many thousands of years so fragile that you feel so insecure, weepy and murderous about a remark by a stranger? I wonder how Adi Shankaracharya would have fared in modern-day India if he continued to criticise, debate, and win arguments like he did against various philosophies and religions of his time. Would a Prince Sidhhartha, who criticised the Vedas, ever become Buddha or rot in jail without bail, had he been a citizen of the secular, democratic, socialist republic of India instead of living 2,600 years ago?
In a civilised society, if sentiment is hurt, one would ignore such comments or criticise back. In theocratic autocracies, blasphemy is punishable by death. We are marching there from the light of Buddha, Gandhi, Shankara and countless other great souls. Indian culture was based on free speech and debates. The freedom to criticise, debate, discuss and even mock or deny is what made the Indian religions like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism unique. Had I been born 200 years ago and lived under the King of Cochin or the East India Company, I would have said we are far removed from that classical society and are so near to the witch hunts of medieval Europe or those of Islamic theocracies like Afghanistan. However, since that statement might hurt someone somewhere in these times, and I am scared, I am apologising profusely and sincerely in advance. Everything is perfect, and we are living in golden times.