If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Last year when the Blogspot domain [later clarified to 17 individual websites] was blocked by the Indian government, many cited national security as justification. Wouldn’t you agree that blocking few websites was better than losing 10,000 lives - was a common argument. It is also that classic ’support the troops’ pro-war argument that if you say anything in protest, you are assumed to be supporting the terrorists or killing babies.
Now it turns out that at least one site was banned not because of any nefarious or evil designs on the Indian state but merely because it offended the sentiments of India’s so-called first family - the Gandhis. And now, Rahul Gandhi who is a Congress MP has sent a legal notice to the owner of the Hindutva website [via email from Nitin]. Never mind that the so-called offender is outside India and beyond jurisdiction of the Indian courts, Rahul Gandhi and his lawyers are hell bent on playing the sympathy card. The legal notice says:
“This publication exceeds and excels even the worst standards of scurrilous, perverted gutter writing — acting at the behest of maliciously motivated elements who cannot stand Rahul Gandhi’s standing and popularity in India and abroad.” We intend to prosecute you and conspirators under all relevant civil and criminal laws” [source].
I cannot help but smile at the naivety of these attorneys who only seek to appeal to the emotional sentiments and generate publicity [wasn't justice blind?]. And they forget to mention, which “all relevant civil and criminal laws” are or where can we find the so-called “standards of scurrilous, perverted gutter writing”; maybe because it would require them mentioning free speech. To those who underplay the threat to free speech in India, I would point out the slippery slope that we embark on. Because right now, it is Rahul Gandhi who is getting offended, tomorrow it might be someone else. So ultimately what offensive or hate speech is boils down to for whom it is offensive instead of what is offensive. Strangely, such action against hate speech is restricted only toward anti-Muslim articles although anti-<any-other-religion> rants by fundamentalist Islamics is found more frequently. Anyway, I have not read the offending article which may for all you know be completely baseless but we see thousand such accusations against Britney Spears in the National Enquirer. It boils down to if you want to lend it any more publicity or credence by publicly protesting against it.
There is plenty of writing on the Internet that I find highly offensive but I choose to ignore it and not read it. Or monitor them for anti-national activities if that is your intent. Don’t drive them underground. It is as simple as that.
Technorati Tags: India, Rahul Gandhi, free speech, hate, offensive, ban
by Patrix | on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm | 
Current Affairs, Politicking, Rants, Society Culture . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
February 4th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Ahem. Patrix have you seen what the Hinduunity site wrote about Rahul Gandhi? There is gossip and then there is criminal slander.
February 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Greatbong, no, I haven’t. And I know whatever Hinduunity site may have said might be untrue. But if people took offense to any random gossip or lies perpetrated by their detractors, we would be caught in a continuous loop. Also, yellow journalism wouldn’t exist.
The chances of a random erstwhile unknown website causing any impact on Rahul’s political career is negligible although he just made it easier. Of course, that shouldn’t stop him from responding or denying the accusations if he feels it deserves a response.
February 4th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
***comment deleted on commenter’s request**
February 4th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Greatbong, I am neither condoning nor agreeing with the comments on Rahul. I am just saying that he shouldn’t dignify any random accusation with a response, much less a legal notice that may imply ‘trying to stifle the truth’. If he wanted to react, he could have claimed moral high ground by denying it and asking his constituents to trust me. I bet people would have without skipping a heartbeat.