Freedom of speech
and it's boundary: JNU row.
JNU row has 9 episodes.
1. Protest &
resentment program on execution of Afzal Guru.
2. Anti-India slogans.
3. Expectation of
Boundary-less Freedom of speech.
4. Sedition charge on
Kanhaiya (Without proof).
5. Manhandling of
Kanhaiya by lawyers.
6. Brushing entire JNU
as anti-national institute.
7. Visit of Rahul to
JNU.
8. Making Kanhaiya hero
by media.
9. Consolidation of
votes by Political parties.
Whatever happened in JNU
is unfortunate.
Under no circumstances
anti-India slogans and protest of Supreme Court verdict against terrorist (
Afzal Guru) can be ignored by hiding under umbrella of freedom of speech.
Looking at intensity of
debate people have divided themselves in two groups.
Those who wants boundary-less
freedom of speech and those who want boundary of freedom of speech. The problem
is who will define boundary. First group (supporters of boundary less freedom
of speech) also believe that there should be some boundary but they fear that
BJP/RSS will forcefully make tighter boundary hence let's fight for limitless
freedom of speech. They don't want to lose their point to that extent that they
haven't criticized anti-India slogans. They have clubbed first 3 points
together hence things have become further complicated.
Those who are opposed to
first 3 points supports next 3 points and those who support first 3 points do
oppose next 3 points. ( Just check the points for better clarity)
Two wrongs can't make
one right. Let there be consensus that initial both episodes are totally wrong.
Here freedom of speech
is main weapon for those who are supporting JNU students who were involved in
the act.
Do you know that entire
rules and regulations are there to define your boundary? IPC,CrPC and Motor
vehicle act do tell what you must not do i.e they are there defining
rules & boundary that you can't breach. Therefore entire police and
judiciary is there to curb your so called "freedom". This is done so
that to others can enjoy freedom ( by the way you are also part of that other).
Let me make you understand. If you don't like anybody, can you hurt him? Can
you publish currency? Can you over speed and drive on right side of road? Can
you evade tax? The answer of all the points are no. These points shows that you
are not free to do whatever you want. These kind of curbs are there so that
society/nation can exist. Law is nothing but list of restrictions. We must
respect them as they are there for greater benefit.
There is saying that
"Your freedom ceases where my nose begins".
Therefore freedom of
speech or expression must have boundaries otherwise it will become
"Bhasmasur".
I know with this kind of
view, proponent of free speech will get hurt. Their biggest problem is that how
and who will define boundary. Their argument will be that today in the name of
nationalism something has been stopped and tomorrow in the name of religion or
in the name of hurting sentiments there will be slew of restrictions on free
speech. I also have the same unforeseen fear but that doesn't means that today
what wrong is happening should be supported to fight tomorrow's unforeseen
fear.
To make things simple
let me try to figure out some similarity between Traffic signal and boundary of
freedom of speech.
Is traffic signal is
good or bad? Obviously it's for good then why most of time when you are getting
late, curse the traffic signal (because you feel that it's stop you).Traffic
signals ensures nobody collides, it lets pass car from 1 direction at a time.
Same works well for conflicting ideologies, ideas where all ideas are welcome
but with restriction on speed ( read intensity) and direction ( read
subject).The reality is that traffic signal stops you for good.
Hence having boundary of
freedom of speech looks bad but it's actually for good.
When it comes about
nation, let not divide ourselves. We have already paid for this for more than
700 years.
Let condemn all 9
episodes so that people who love country should win.
"Jai Hind"
Manoj Tripathi
No comments:
Post a Comment