-
-
Jan282009
Abuse and denial of Fundamental Rights
On Republic Day, I had an argument with an ex-mutineer, and a right-wing Hindu nationalist author. Right-wing might be putting it mildly. For all I know he might’ve also believed, like many others did, that Obama rhymes with Osama and his middle name, Hussein, implies some relationship with the late Mr. Saddam. Let me tell those who think this way that Obama isn’t a terrorist (in fact he isn’t even Muslim) and MS Dhoni isn’t a Microsoft Product.
Anyhow, his harmless wish was nothing but a “Happy Republic Day” accompanied by a smiley. GoogleTalk doesn’t (yet) have an anti-Islamic or anti-Secular smiley, so he had to make do with the ordinary one. As you see, the guy is such a rightist that if he bowled right-arm-around-the-wicket he’d miss the popping crease and deliver from mid-wicket. *That* right-wing. For all practical purposes, we shall henceforth refer to him as mid-wicket.
So, mid-wicket’s idea of religious tolerance is permitting Muslims to understand the principles of Hindutva, which may be a way of life but if it differs from core Islamic principles then you’re breaking your head against a brick wall. Mid-wicket understands this as much as Modi prays five times a day.
Midwicket had the nerve to wish me a Happy Republic Day. I told him that I refuse to accept his wishes, and he asked why. Here we go.
Midwicket: Happy Republic Day 
Me: Sorry, I don’t accept your wishes.
Midwicket: Why not?
Me: To begin with, do you know *why* we celebrate Republic Day?
Midwicket: Yes, to remember that our constitution was adopted today.
Me: Good, not many people knew that. Now, do you know what the constitution is?
Midwicket: You don’t?
Me: Maybe, maybe not. Do you?
Midwicket: Yes.
Me: Do you know what it says?
Midwicket: What part?
Me: Three. Fundamental Rights. Heard of them?
Midwicket: Yes, why?
Me: Do you know what’s in the Fundamental Rights?
Midwicket: Yes, why?
Me: Right to equality. Right to Freedom of Religion. Heard of Right to Freedom of Religion?
Midwicket: Yes.
Me: You’re an author, a responsible author, no?
Midwicket: Yes.
Me: Good. Let me tell you that you, a responsible author, abuse the right to freedom of expression to deny people right to freedom of religion. When you abuse one fundamental right to deny the other, both of which form the core of the constitution, you have no right to wish anyone or celebrate Republic Day. As a result, I do not accept your wishes.
There has not been a response from him since. He might be wincing in pain at the fact that our constitution permits freedom for Muslims and Christians and Sikhs and other religions to practice freely. I’m proud of our country for the same reason. The recent Mangalore and MNS incidents are examples of fundamental rights being violated. We should stop asking the Government for answers. I think we should constructively give up on the Government. We should assume that the Central and State Governments are incapable of improving the situation: at best they are only capable of ‘managing’ and ‘adjusting’ with existing resources, processes and corruption. We should hence expect little from whoever gets voted at the center, be it the NDA or UPA. Instead, we must chart out, at our own little levels, what we can do to make our lives and those of our neighbourhood and community better. Not being a regionalist, but setting our sights lower and first cleaning up the mess amongst our own little areas is a logical first step before we reach out to a national agenda.
As for midwicket, such people who clearly abuse fundamental rights must either be punished or banned from expressing their opinion. Raj Thackeray too, for all you care, has an opinion: he has a negative opinion on North Indians and takes them on. The Ram Sena, the MNS and anyone midwicket is associated with must be banned before hate engulfs a land that has been tolerant since the sand of mankind’s hourglass has been trickling down in time.
The views expressed in this post are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by Mutiny.in
Subscribe
Submit Link
Vadu Manga
001
9:51 am
You abuse the right to freedom of expression to deny people right to freedom of religion.
Since when did someone expressing his/her opinion freely stop others from practicing their religion freely?
almostinfamous
002
10:17 am
@ Vadu Manga (nice nickname btw) - since dec 16 1992, at least here in india.
borneveryday
003
10:36 am
Yea…. I don’t understand how you think he/she has denied the fundamental right of practicing a religion, by just writing something.
@2s
“As for midwicket, such people who clearly abuse fundamental rights must either be punished or banned from expressing their opinion.”
Now are you trying to deny his fundamental right of speech??? Its wrong only if a right is denied by force, like what happened in Mangalore and Mumbai. But otherwise you can always choose to ignore people who don’t make sense to you.
captainjohann
004
10:39 am
A great dialogue.
Does freedom of religion allow another religion to be abused or their practises ridiculed?
2s
005
10:41 am
@borneveryday - anyone who writes freely or expresses his opinion in a responsible public forum, and if what they write or their opinion suggests that a non-Hindu cannot practise his religion in India, they must be prosecuted as well, because they endorse the violation of a constitutional right.
yaamyn
006
10:47 am
Refreshing article, 2S.
Kickstarted my morning!
Nice points about the Constitution and the right wingers who ‘celebrate’ a constitution that give citizens the freedoms they abhor.
@captainjohann : I think telling someone his/her faith cannot be allowed to be practised in his/her own country is as bad, if not worse, a form of ridicule and insult.
borneveryday
007
10:49 am
@2s,
Every one is different and there will surely be someone who is not “normal” and will say that “a non-Hindu cannot practise his religion in India” . But as long it is in a public forum and is not forced onto others, i think you have your right of speech to condemn him and make him understand.
But if the person is of a good social standing then its more of ethics which he/she will have to take into consideration before he writes something like that. But I think you cant deny his fundamental right.
Thats my 2 paise worth of comment. And I have the right to say it. Please dont deny it to me.
captainjohann
008
11:00 am
Hi Yaamyn,
I agree with you. But as a christian My religion doesnot allow idol worship.But i think i have no right to tell a Hindu neighbor that his worshipping an idol is wrong.
But then how do we propagate our religion(allowed in our constitution) without hurting others is the question?
Ujj
009
11:23 am
Great discussion this and I feel a very valid point made by @captainjohann.
I have one doubt here, does ‘ religious tolerance’ as we would *like* to define it, mean that we’re okay with the fact that someone actually doesn’t even consider the other religion to be a real faith? Can we live with that? cause if we can, then you technically can’t deny someone a right to his fundamental right of practicing their religion cause they’re okay with you calling it a fake religion and you’re okay with them considering you the same.
thefiltercoffee
010
11:42 am
I think the assumption in this article is that because something is in the constitution, it cannot be challenged. This is not true, and the 94 amendments of the Constitution are proof of it. Indeed, even Fundamental Rights have been altered through constitutional amendments (most notably, in 1978 and 2002, when the “Right to Property” was effectively removed, and the “Right to Education” was included, respectively).
Per Supreme Court ruling, Hindutva was defined as “…a way of life or state of mind…not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism”. “Hindu nationalism” is an ideology that understands the Indian State as a Hindu polity. Both these ideologies do not deny the right of anyone else to practice their faiths — their aim is to see the state of India embrace the culture of the Indian dominion that is ostensibly Hindu. This is no different than so-called neocons in the US yearning for a “Christian” America or the AKP favoring a more conservative Islamist societal fabric in Turkey.
What happened in Mangalore a couple of days ago is a disgrace and a blot on our government’s ability to maintain law and order; organizations such as the Ram Sena (SRS) and Thackeray’s MNS must be crushed through police action before their “causes” gain momentum. Their ideologies are “Hindu fundamentalist” (SRS), and Marathi fundamentalist (MNS), but not Hindutva or Hindu nationalism, and are akin to Wahabism in Islam. But to say that someone who professes Hindu nationalism violates the Constitution is incorrect, since they seek to exercise their constitutional right (expression) without denying the right of others to practice their own religions.
2s
011
11:46 am
@thefiltercoffee
As long as they are professing Hindu nationalism without condemning another religion, it is their right. Also, what is in the constitution *can* be challenged but must not until it forms part of the constitution, a call that the government takes, which is why as you say there are amendments. If we continue to challenge it then what’s the point of having those basic rights set up for us?
thefiltercoffee
012
12:04 pm
@ 2s
As citizens of a democratic nation, we have a right to challenge the contents of the constitution. Basic Rights are encoded in the constitution based on consensus (direct or indirect) formed at a certain point in time. Popular consensus over the issue may fall apart in time, and that right may need to be altered. This is part of the democratic engine of free nations. Case in point, the purging of the phrase “pursuit of property” from the so-called “inalienable rights” of the US, or the omission of the writers of our original constitution to include the right to education. As Indian citizens, it is our right to challenge every aspect of our governance, including our Constitution. Without this right, it would be no different than being governed by the constitutions of Saudi Arabia or China.
2s
013
12:13 pm
@thefiltercoffee
Agreed. Still, I don’t see what good will come out of challenging these particular rights in the constitution.
Harini
014
7:42 pm
I agree expressing your opinion against a religion publicly is insulting a faith. any opinion expressed should not be infuriating; has to be passive.
but it’s just not possible for freedom of expression to exist without having situations like that. you will just have to ignore what you choose not to follow.
Tolerance is not only showing restraint in criticizing what you don’t believe in but also putting up with opinions you don’t agree with.
forufrom1987
015
8:56 pm
This right of freedom of speech, religion and equality is what differentiates India and other democratic countries from the totalitarian regimes.
Although, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of hate, freedom of expression is not freedom of violence, freedom of religion is not freedom of terrorism.
I can’t see mid-wicket or right-winger is anywhere in opposition to anyone. He simply insists on his own. If we allow such people to spread, sure India’s freedom is gone!
Another Kafir
016
11:18 pm
Dude, you had a disagreement with the dude and you thought you would yap about it? Lame dude..
amreekandesi
017
2:37 am
Having a difference of opinion is fine, not liking someone for his beliefs is also fine. But why would someone make such a huge argument out of a simple ‘happy republic day’?
Whatever happened to tolerance?
sanjukta
018
4:39 am
My response to this whole debate is already up. But to answer a few specific issues here….
Each one of you have commented on the assumption that you know what that person, midwicket, originally wrote. None of you could have possibly read it because we unpublished it. Yet you all have assumed that 2s is against a harmless guy who only happen to have exercised his harmless FR.
He was not so harmless u know. Like i said he was the blogging avatar of a Raj Thackeray, only, he was against Muslims.
@filtercoffee
The basic tenets of our constitution is not amendable. The preamble that is. Besides that I didn’t get the point you were trying to make by bringing in the question of amendibility. Are you saying we should consider an amendment of Freedom of speech to include abuse of other religion as a right?
@amreekan desi and another kaafir
Why even bother to comment if thats all you can see in this post?
thefiltercoffee
019
8:27 am
@sanjukta,
A couple of quick points:
a) Your statement that the preamble is not amendable is incorrect. In fact, the preamble has already amended as part of the 42nd constitutional amendment (1976) to include the words “Socialist” and “Secular” in the definition of the Republic. Prior to 1976, India was defined only as a “Sovereign democratic republic”
b) Regardless, the preamble is not enforceable in court, because the preamble itself doesn’t contain laws.
On the reason for bringing up amendability….after reading the article, I got the impression that there was a belief that everything in the constitution was set in stone and couldn’t be challenged by citizens disagreeing with it. To answer your question, I am not advocating anything wrt constitutional changes; I am merely pointing out that the author referred to in 2s’s article (”mid-wicket” - who I presume is an Indian citizen) has the right to challenge the inclusion or exclusion of any aspect of the constitution. The fact that his challenge will be shot down by the Supreme Court before he can say “sovereign socialist democratic republic” is another matter altogether.
Yella Ok
020
5:13 pm
Captain Johann’s comments is at the heart of all debates about freedom of religion.
If you cannot propogate your religion without hurting other religions and the followers/beliefs of such other religions, then the answer is simple - DONT PROPOGATE. If you are not ready to accept this, then the backlash and the “tu tu main main” between relgions will never stop.
Sandip Bhattacharya
021
3:22 am
Yella OK,
How do you expect somebody to propagate a religion without proving its superiority over the current religion practiced by the target audience?
Whether it is Christian missionaries, whether it is the murdered swami in Orissa who had been doing “re-conversions” for 30 years, or Baba Ambedkar who led millions of Harijans to embrace Buddhism, … all of them have denigrated the current religions to push their own.
captainjohann
022
9:34 am
Hi sandip,
You are absolutely correct.Again it is upto the INDIVIDUAL to acccept or reject the argument of the prreacher,swami or Mullah.
That is why the proviso is there to protect the poor and innocents who can be lured by money,power,force.
DEBATES AND ARGUMENTS are allowed in our constitution.
almostinfamous
023
9:59 am
Although, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of hate, freedom of expression is not freedom of violence, freedom of religion is not freedom of terrorism.
yeah, which is why we have, these little things called laws and regulations against them, right? why do people feel the need to restate the obvious?
we have libel, slander and defamation laws that can be used by anyone who feels wronged by someone’s comments, and they can lead to criminal proceeding in india, which is not the case in the rest of the world.
How do you expect somebody to propagate a religion without proving its superiority over the current religion practiced by the target audience?
because i dont expect anyone to propagate their religions. is that too much to ask? apparently it is…
almostinfamous
024
10:01 am
case of defamation laws being used by the AIADMK govt.
Yella OK
025
10:09 pm
Sandip and Captain Johann - These type of arguments will only result in more divisiveness and never ending disturbance. One can say that one’s religion is good - if such saying cannot be accepted for its intrinsic value. The moment one says that one’s religion is BETTER, you are bringing in subjectivity and denigrating other religions - which may not be acceptable, and you are letting loose a force which is unstoppable.
So, if you cannot propogate without denigrating others, then I repeat the solution is simple - DO NOT PROPOGATE or PROPOGATE WITH LESSER RESULTS. Dont create disharmony in society just because you want greater results. Till christian missionaries do not understand this in India, there is bound to be unrest. You can say jesus is god. The moment you say Jesus is God, there is no God and that Lord Rama is not God, you invite trouble and dont blame others for the trouble you bring.
Polite Indian
026
11:04 pm
“Let me tell those who think this way that Obama isn’t a terrorist (in fact he isn’t even Muslim)”
Is being a Muslim a precondition to being a terrorist?
Sandip Bhattacharya
027
1:49 am
> Sandip and Captain Johann - These type of arguments will only result in
> more divisiveness and never ending disturbance. One can say that one’s
> religion is good - if such saying cannot be accepted for its intrinsic value.
Yella Ok. *My* comment was divisive? I gave three different examples of three different religions doing the *same* thing to propagate their faith. It is interesting to see how you only picked out the Christian missionaries as the ones who should be mending their faiths. Soft targets? As if all the reconversions and “ghar wapasi” programs are all polite respectful ways of converting people. Both sides need to stop their denigrations. It is hypocritical for you to preach against others while finding it ok when your own faith (assuming you are Hindu) does the same.
akshay agrawal
028
1:54 am
you all people are fools.midwicket may be an extremist but i fully agree with his opinions of hindu state.this is our country,the hindu country.one day when muslims will through you out of your country then you will realise that you should have killed all muslims earlier.wake up people,save the hindus otherwise we will be crushed by muslims.HAIL HITLER!
captainjohann
029
11:43 am
hI SANDIP,
gREAT REPLY.
If i say Jesus is great or love thy neighbour. why it should threaten others.One can say Krishna is the greatest .I donot feel threatened.Infact i accept some of the teachings of Gita as it is my culture also as my forefathers must have followed its teachings.
Yella OK
030
11:04 am
Captain Johann and Sandip - You must first learn to read comments properly before getting hyperbole about it.
Capt. - I have not said that you cannot say “Jesus is great”. I have also said, one can say “Jesus is God” and others should not have a problem. However, the problem arises when one denigrates other religions and other gods - if that is the only of conversion, to hell with that means of conversion; DONT CONVERT, DONT PROPOGATE - just worship your god and let others worship theirs.
Sandip - Pls let us not beat around the bush. We all know who run the biggest and most well funded conversion operations in the country. You dont become more liberal with your 3 examples and I dont become less - let us not be blinded by ill advised notions of liberalism. We are talking about conversions and we all know who is more and most active in conversions. My first post never talked about or mentioned any religion. By talking about “ghar wapasi”, you are only trying to protect the corrupt practices of others.
As I said in my orignial post, propogation of faith by condemning other religions should be a strict no-no when religion is a matter of faith which cannot be proved. If you have faith in Ram, I in Jesus and Capt in Allah, let us go ahead with these faiths, but the moment we say my god is greater than your god, etc, we get into dangerous territories and offer a surefire recipe for disaster. Just because one religion says “go forth and multiply”, it is not an automatic license to connvert followers of other religions with gay abandon, just like prejudiced caste-system is a no-no even if it is a practice followed for generations by Hindus. RELIGION IS A SUBJECT MATTER OF SOLICITATION AND NOT OF SALE - for sale is what conversion activiites have turned religions into.
As I said in my original post, propogation of faith by condemning other religions, should be a strict no-no when religion is just a matter of faith which cannot be proven by evidence. So, there can be no end to these debates. If you have faith in Ram, I in Jesus and Capt in Allah let us go ahead with these faiths, but the moment we say Ram is greater than Jesus and Allah is greater than Ram, etc, we get into dangerous territories and divide society. Just because one religion says “Go forth and Multiply”, it is not an automatic license to condemn other religions with gay abandon, just like prejudiced caste system is a no-no even if it is a practice followed for generations by followers of another religion.
And, sandip - if you say you treat equally and hence talked about conversion activities of all religions, would you support a “cease fire” i.e., all religions stop their conversion (or reconversion activities. Would you, sandip and captain?