Indian Press on Hate Speech, Afghanistan and Spiritualism in Mahabharata: New Age Islam's Selection, 21 September 2020
By
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
21 September
2020
•Define
the Contours of Hate in Speech
By
Suhrith Parthasarathy
•Freedoms
Exercised by All Mediums Disseminating News Are the Cornerstone of Our Republic
By
Kapil Sibal
•Search
for Peace in Afghanistan Will Not Succeed Unless All Parties Relinquish
Entrenched Thinking
By
Vivek Katju
•The
Real Enemy Is the Ego That Hinders
By
Praveen Nagda
------
Define
the Contours of Hate in Speech
By
Suhrith Parthasarathy
September
21, 2020 00:02 IST
On
September 15, the Supreme Court of India injuncted a Hindi-language television
channel, Sudarshan News, from continuing its broadcast of a series titled
“Bindas Bol”. This decision marked a departure from an order delivered on
August 28, when the Court said that it must be circumspect in imposing any
prior restraint on speech, especially since statutory authorities were vested
with powers to ensure compliance of the law. But circumstances changed —
following the Court’s original order, four episodes in the series were aired,
portraying what the channel described as a jihadi conspiracy by Muslims to
infiltrate India’s civil services.
To this
allegation, the show added a number of evidently false statements. For example,
it claimed that the upper age limit for Hindus attempting the civil service
examination was 32 years, while the age limit for Muslims was 35; that Muslims
were entitled to nine attempts at the examination when Hindus were entitled
only to six. These assertions, the Court noted, were not only “insidious” but
were also made in “wanton disregard of the truth”. Therefore, even on the face
of it, the episodes had brought the entire Muslim community into “public hatred
and disrepute”, and, in the process, had breached the Programme Code that
regulated cable television.
Delineating
The Ambiguous
The
channel’s contempt for facts, and its attempt to denigrate Muslims, might
appear to be an obvious case of hate speech, but our laws present several
complications when an attempt is made to distinguish permissible speech from
hateful criminal conduct. The Supreme Court’s own past precedent has scarcely
helped clarify matters. This case, therefore, represents something of an
opportunity: to infuse clarity in our legislation by identifying the
distinction between merely offensive speech and hate speech, and by making
clearer still those categories of exceptional cases where the Constitution
permits prior restraint. To be sure, this exercise has to be delicately
handled. But that it is fraught with difficulties must not deter the Court from
delineating what has long remained ambiguous.
A working
definition of hate speech will have to be gleaned by interpreting our laws in
conjunction with the constitutional right to free speech. But in attempting to
draw a line, it might be valuable to study the basic thesis that undergirds a
consensus across most liberal democracies — with the notable exception of the
United States — on why states must deny protection to hate speech. This view is
predicated on a philosophical defence which is perhaps best exemplified in the
works of the scholar, Jeremy Waldron.
In Prof.
Waldron’s definition, hate speech refers to utterances that incite violence,
hatred, or discrimination against people on the basis of their collective
identity, be it race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality. He says the
limitation in these cases should be restricted to those categories of
minorities who are vulnerable. Under this conception, a merely offensive
statement would not qualify as hate speech. For example, a mockery of Buddhism’s
tenets would not be illegal simply because it offends the sensibilities of its
practitioners; on the other hand, speech that describes all Buddhists as amoral
would qualify. Similarly, a work of satire on a religious figure that outrages
the sentiments of his followers will be safeguarded, but speech that vilifies
an entire community by describing them, say, as “anti-nationals” would go
unprotected. This is because hate speech, as Prof. Waldron argues, attacks two
key tenets of a democratic republic: the guarantee of equal dignity to all, and
the public good of inclusiveness.
Downside
To More Speech
Prof.
Waldron’s thesis has been met with substantial resistance from First Amendment
scholars in America.
They argue
that censorship is a bottomless pit, that it is impossible to conceive
bright-line rules that can distinguish between speech that only offends and
speech that arouses hatred. They do not deny that a right to absolute freedom
of speech can be abused. But they believe the only answer to misused freedom is
more speech. While there is some merit in this response. it ignores at least
three significant factors.
One, that
even under the First Amendment, not all speech is equal — commercial speech,
libel, and fighting words are afforded a lower standard of protection. Two,
that almost all laws are a matter of construction; after all, most European
democracies adopt principled standards that distinguish hate speech from merely
offensive or rebarbative speech. Three, that countering speech with more speech
is plausible only when there is a balance of power across society. Experience
shows us that there can be no assurance that hate speech will somehow be sieved
out of the veritable marketplace of ideas.
India’s
Laws
Prof.
Waldron’s theory is also appealing because it fits with India’s democratic
vision. Specifically, it animates the values of liberty, equality and
fraternity that the Constitution’s framers viewed as foundational. Until now,
however, the country’s hate-speech laws have suffered from a Delphic imprecision.
Read literally, Section 153A and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),
which criminalise, respectively, speech that seeks to promote enmity between
different groups and speech/acts that outrage/s religious feelings, are no more
than a poor imitation of what hate speech laws ought to be. They are vaguely
worded, and they are frequently invoked to quell speech that so much as offends
a person’s belief. As a result, they militate against the permissible grounds
for limiting free speech enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, and,
in particular, the restrictions allowed on considerations of public order and
morality.
The first
of those grounds demands that speech must reach a level of incitement to be
criminalised. That is, the utterance in dispute must go beyond advocacy. The
second ground requires a re-imagination of our hate speech laws. It obliges us
to read morality not as societal morality but as constitutional morality. Seen
this way, speech that merely causes offence and is no more than disparaging or
unpleasant, would continue to remain shielded. But speech that treats
communities with disparate concern, by creating in them a sense of dread, a
sense of exclusion from civic life, will go unprotected.
Issue Of
Prior Restraint
While it is
clear that the Constitution offers no protection to hate speech, the state’s
failure to apply the Programme Code uniformly is linked to a wider incongruence
in the law’s contents. Just like the substantive hate speech provisions in the
IPC, the Programme Code is also much too vague. The Supreme Court must chisel
its contents into a feasible, constitutionally committed model. Hard as this
exercise sounds, this is the easy part — it is in deciding whether a prior
restraint on speech can be imposed that the Court must tread a finer line.
We have
repeatedly seen the deleterious impact that injunctions on speech have on the
right to information and democracy. Only last week the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh gagged the press from reporting on a charge made against a former
Advocate General of the State, despite the manifest public interest in the
case. Likewise, the pitfalls of a rule of absolute prior restraint under the
Cinematograph Act have been all too evident. We certainly do not need an
analogous regime for the broadcast media. But, at the same time, a rule against
prior restraint cannot be unconditional. When it becomes evident that the basic
objective of a broadcast is to evoke hatred and to vilify a vulnerable minority
the law must find a way to foil the harm. A lot will ride on how the Court
strikes this balance — for hate speech, once uttered, not only leaves little
room for restitution but can also ramify to serve all manners of undemocratic
ends.
------
Suhrith
Parthasarathy is an advocate practising at the Madras High Court
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/define-the-contours-of-hate-in-speech/article32655176.ece
-----
Freedoms
Exercised By All Mediums Disseminating News Are The Cornerstone Of Our Republic
By
Kapil Sibal
September
21, 2020
In recent
years, significant players in mainstream electronic media, instead of
discharging their responsibilities as watchdogs, have passed the test of being
lap dogs with flying colours. (File)
At last, a
ray of hope. On September 16, the Supreme Court granted interim stay,
preventing Sudarshan TV from further telecasting the programme “UPSC Jihad”. As
the matter is sub-judice, it would not be fair to comment either on the content
or the quality of the programme. The Court analysed the programme in the context
of our constitutional edifice founded on values of co-existence of communities,
India being a melting pot of diverse civilisations and cultures. The petition,
seeking to prohibit its broadcast, was moved by five distinguished citizens who
also hoped to persuade the court to draw up standards for programmes in the
electronic media. This ray of hope will be realised if the Supreme Court
mandates the setting-up of Citizens’ Panel for TV channels to ascertain whether
the programmes being viewed conform to the standards that the court may
prescribe and evolve in the context of our constitutional values. The road
ahead is a slippery slope. While we cherish the freedom of speech as a
constitutional right, those who exercise it, have also to conform to their constitutional
responsibilities. The parameters for such standards which deal with the right
to free speech and the responsibilities involved in exercising it have to be
carefully engrafted, ensuring that one is not eclipsed by the other.
The
government’s submissions in this regard were telling. It was contended that any
guidelines framed would affect the freedom of the press, leading to disastrous
consequences, amounting to exercising control over the media. For this
government to espouse the cause of freedom of the press and pretend to be its
votary is ironic, given the perception that the present establishment has
sought to silence and control the media far too often, and that too
unabashedly.
We know
that mainstream electronic media can be controlled, disregarding existing
statutory guidelines. The fourth estate was conceived to act as a watchdog of
the three organs of the state. In recent years, significant players in
mainstream electronic media, instead of discharging their responsibilities as
watchdogs, have passed the test of being lap dogs with flying colours. If the
fourth estate functions in tandem with the ideology of the ruling class,
extolling virtues of its policies and taking forward its agenda through
slanging matches on screen, where the anchor acts as a votary of the ruling
establishment’s policies and positions, such an outcome has certain unsavoury
consequences. First, the voice of dissent is not allowed any space in
mainstream electronic media. It is silenced whenever a contrary point of view
is expressed. Second, the shouting brigade, singing the tune of the anchor, is
given undue space and time which leads to a biased outcome. Third, the
bloodbath on such channels, leads to an increase in TRPs, enriching the
business houses funding these channels. Fourth, is the reach of such mainstream
media whose salacious appetites are whetted by display of diatribes polluting
minds, thereby serving the cause of a particular ideological mindset. Fifth,
the increase in TRPs results in increased advertisement revenues, which again
fuels such bloodbaths for yet another encounter. Opposition to setting
standards for programmes in the electronic media as that will impact “freedom
of the press”, in fact, means that the government does not wish the Court to
regulate the war-cries of ideological mindsets polluting young minds and
serving desired political objectives.
Democratic
freedoms exercised by all mediums disseminating news are the cornerstone of our
republic. However, such mediums have onerous responsibilities to discharge
towards the following outcomes. First, they ensure that all points of views are
heard for the public to be informed — the essence of freedom of speech. Second,
it saves young minds from being polluted. Third, no ideological mindset is wantonly
served through the media. Fourth , anchors do not fuel agendas, which strike at
the root of our democratic values.
That apart,
it is imperative that the structure of media, which allows for such outcomes is
also looked at in the context of our constitutional freedoms. Perhaps, free
speech is not always “free” since it is fuelled by commercial interests. Free
speech is tainted if business houses who wish to protect their empires are
willing to compromise with governments. We have moved far beyond the age when
print media would fund itself through contributions so that independent
opinions could be shared. Our national leaders would write editorials to ensure
that independent voices of those seeking freedom are heard. But in the 21st
century, often the voices of those seeking to silence free speech, particularly
in the electronic media are heard.
The shift
has taken place because to run a TV channel requires enormous resources. While
the voices that pollute are part of a significant section of mainstream media,
those who have no platform for exercising free speech are now part of the
social media. That is yet another problem which the Court will have to deal
with in the near future. The nature of social media is such that even there,
armies are employed to serve partisan ends: Independent voices are sought to be
silenced. But social media is perhaps even more powerful because content is
transmitted at breakneck speed. Fake news, images that churn stomachs, have
resulted in mayhem in the digital world. While the print media is regulated by
law, social media platforms epitomise lawlessness. They cannot be regulated as
many operate under the mask of anonymity. Global players make money while the
victims of social media have no recourse to law.
It is time for
the state to ensure that our republic is not defaced and damaged by shrill
voices and agendas masquerading in the name of free speech. It is time for the
courts to stand up and hold the scales of justice, making sure that they are
balanced evenly. Otherwise, the tilt may endanger freedom itself.
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/supreme-court-sudarshan-tv-upsc-jihad-freedom-of-press-6603892/
----
Search
for Peace in Afghanistan Will Not Succeed Unless All Parties Relinquish
Entrenched Thinking
By
Vivek Katju
September
21, 2020
Taliban
delegates shake hands during talks between the Afghan government and Taliban
insurgents in Doha, Qatar September 12, 2020. REUTERS/Ibraheem al Omari
The
enormity of the challenges confronting intra-Afghan talks that commenced in
Doha on August 12 can only be appreciated if they are placed in the context of
the turmoil that has continued in Afghanistan for over four and a half decades.
For the first time, far-reaching changes involving the polity are being attempted
through dialogue without the gun being the sole arbiter.
The country
has witnessed the overthrow of the monarchy, a nationalist dictatorship,
communist rule, the mujahideen era, the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate and the
current Islamic Republic. It has also experienced almost three decades of the
presence of foreign forces and outside interference, especially from Pakistan.
The balance of Afghan society and polity, shaken in 1973 with the monarchy’s
departure, has never been restored. Instead, sharpening ethnic divides,
extremist ideologies and theologies, large migration to foreign lands, internal
displacement, spread of narcotics and violence have become endemic. At the same
time, over the past 15 years, a section of Afghan urban youth linked to the world
through the social media wants more open systems within an Islamic framework.
Negotiators
representing the Taliban and the rest of the Afghan political establishment and
their masters bear in large or small measure the psychological and, in some
cases, physical scars of this painful history. Hence, the search for durable
peace and stability will not succeed unless all parties and, in some cases
their foreign patrons, especially Pakistan, are willing to substantially
relinquish entrenched thinking. If they fail to do so, the talks will fail too.
This may result in a collapse of existing political structures, splintering of
the Afghan armed forces and higher levels of violence and criminality.
As the
talks begin, the Taliban is in a position of strength. If the Kabul-based
Afghan political class had succeeded in consolidating the republic and had kept
the Taliban confined to a small area, it would have had the upper hand. That
has not been so. Indeed, the Taliban with Pakistani support has shown
remarkable resilience and has gained great confidence. It has inflicted a
strategic defeat on the world’s pre-eminent power. To effectively tackle them,
American troops would have had to enter Pakistan territory and carry out a
sustained operation. That, none of the three presidents who had to deal with
the Taliban after 9/11 were willing to do.
While the
Taliban is largely cohesive, the Kabul political class is not. The 2019
presidential election was deeply flawed. The declaration of the incumbent
president, Ashraf Ghani, as victor was dubious. Ghani was forced to accept his
rival Dr Abdullah as the head of the Peace and Reconciliation Council, implying
that he would have to share authority in decision-making in the peace
negotiations. Also, other members of the Kabul team represent civil society and
other political forces including the Hizb-e-Islami. This will give
opportunities to the Taliban and others to create disunity in their ranks.
The most
significant issue in these negotiations will relate to the nature of Islam in
Afghanistan. The constitution of the Islamic Republic, adopted in 2004, begins
with the Islamic shahada and commits the state to the “Holy religion of Islam”.
It also seeks to uphold the universal declaration of human rights. The Taliban
accept Hanafi jurisprudence like the majority of Afghans but believe that the
Islamic sharia in its extreme Deobandi interpretation along with distorted
Pashtun social codes must be uncompromisingly followed. That manifests itself
in the approach to other faiths, other Islamic mazhabs, gender issues, social
conduct and apparel and even facial hair.
It is
almost impossible to predict how common ground can be found to accommodate
fiercely held beliefs on all sides on the issues of religious interpretation
and social codes. Goodwill among the negotiators and leaders buttressed with
creative Islamic jurisprudence and scholarship would be needed. At the same
time the Taliban leadership and Pakistan would be aware that despite its
strategic defeat and desperation to withdraw, the US retains the capacity to
deny them the fruits of “victory”. Also, the third decade of this century in
not the last decade of the last millennium; the world has been transformed. To
what extent will all this make the Taliban flexible is an imponderable. The
Kabul elite would also have to make concessions on political issues and social
codes.
However
laudable it may be, it would be unrealistic to expect the Taliban to agree to a
ceasefire though they may calibrate violence as the talks progress. The Taliban
would fear that if cadres are not used, they may just fritter away. Also, Kabul
would not take them seriously if it lost the ability to inflict damage. For the
movement, power sharing, especially at the Centre, while significant, may not
be as important as gaining charge of some provinces, a prospect Kabul will be
chary about, irrespective of the facts on the ground.
At its core
the Taliban is Pushtun. Its treatment of non-Pushtun Afghan ethnicities during
its rule generated hatred and fear among them. Since then it has tried to put
forward a pan-Afghan image and has succeeded in making some headway in a few
non-Pushtun areas. However, old fears remain strong among many non-Pushtun
especially in the cities. It will have to address these concerns.
How is
India placed in Afghanistan as this dialogue begins? Clearly, Indian
policy-makers refused to modify their Afghan approaches even as it became
increasingly evident that the Taliban had gained ground in the country and was
getting international legitimacy. Even while the Kabul authorities were trying
to persuade the Taliban to the negotiating table, India continued to shun it.
It saw the situation in black and white terms because of the Taliban connection
and dependence on Pakistan. This resulted in India putting itself into a
corner. It could have continued to strengthen its ties with Kabul and at the
same time opened links with the Taliban. Diplomatic contradictions have to be
managed. All other major powers were doing so. In India’s case, this was especially
needed because the Taliban was signalling that it was not a Pakistani proxy.
That assertion should have been tested.
External
Affairs Minister Jaishankar correctly emphasised that the talks should be
Afghan owned and led. In addition, India should also stress that in the
interests of Afghanistan and the region the talks must succeed, that their
failure would be catastrophic for the Afghan people and the region. Finally,
that India would continue with its traditional policy of fostering close ties
with any legitimate Afghan government.
-----
Vivek
Katju is former Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-opening-in-doha-6603890/
-----
The Real
Enemy Is the Ego That Hinders
By
Praveen Nagda
September
21, 2020
Enemies and
friends coexist in the material world. We create them for ourselves, and we do
it with our thoughts, feelings, and actions – knowingly most of the time and
unknowingly probably some of the time. On the one hand, we form relationships,
build bonds, make attachments, establish connections, nurture friendships,
develop acquaintances and on the other hand, we detach from people and
relationships, experience break-ups, disconnect physically and mentally with
loved ones, face deceptions in partnerships, and go through separations
followed by emotional upheavals.
It is
either the way we see ourselves and others’ interactions with us, or the way we
see others and our interactions with them – these define how the relationships
will develop, grow, mature, sustain, survive, collapse – and destroy or tarnish
our physical and mental worlds. Deep in our own minds, perception and
attention-seeking often form a self-image. This image of our own self is in
continuous discussion with our own thoughts, and simultaneously relates to
others whom we interact with and keeps making impressions about them.
‘Aham’
means ‘I’ but in the limited sense, it is always used in contexts that are
complex. It is often referred to as a short form of ‘ahamkara’, ego. When a simple
expression of ‘i am’ or ‘Aham’ gradually leads to enforcing thoughts,
ideas, beliefs and imposing of i, me, and myself over everyone else, it becomes
ahamkara, ego, where there is no space for others.
Arrogance,
pride, self-driven approach, aggression, competitive behaviour, being
opinionated, judgmental and critical are clear signs of egoistic behaviour,
also leading to stress, suffering, anxiety, destructive mindset, sorrow and
pain, as the ego doesn’t allow for joy and happiness anymore.
In the Mahabharata,
Arjuna’s ego was the attachment to his body, due to ignorance, until he was
taught otherwise by Krishna. He then decided to follow the path of karma after
understanding that the real true Self is eternal, and it doesn’t perish.
Duryodhana’s ego was amplified by those he was surrounded with. The praise,
admiration, applause and the respect he always received from his cronies led to
his arrogance that eventually destroyed him.
Similar to
incidents in the Mahabharata, we, too, are constantly fighting battles of ego
all the time. Whether we are engaging with family, friends, relatives,
acquaintances, or business associates, we tend to make comparisons and
judgments, with reference to what they have or don’t have vis-à-vis ourselves.
Doesn’t it create a tempest, turbulence, an uneasiness, often in our own minds,
with our own thoughts? Doesn’t it interfere with our normal life, work and
interactions with people?
The ego in
us goes on creating enemies among friends, well-wishers, and thereby valuable
relationships are compromised, bringing misery, pain and sorrow into our lives.
A part of
our brain seems to be responsible for consciousness, for maintaining the ego.
Scientists are working towards deciphering the mystery of our mind. However,
various spiritual masters all over the world have given us enough guidelines,
teachings, methods and practices that can help us manage our egos well enough
for it to play a constructive role in our lives and save us from being
devastated or from saving others from being devastated by us. Any time is a
good time to move from ego, to let go!
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/the-real-enemy-is-the-ego-that-hinders/
-----
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism