Can we blame the growing intolerance in our society on social backwardness or on ineffective governance? Mark Lynn Sr. Anchor/ Correspondent DD News says it's the latter.
Limits to freedom of expression
The attack on the Maharaja Sayajirao University in Vadodara over art student Chandramohan's offensive paintings and the attack on the Dinakaran office in Madurai following its publication of a controversial survey on Karunanidhi's likely successor, leading to the ouster of Dayanidhi Maran from the Union cabinet, and now the violent outbursts in Bhatinda between the supporters of Sacha Souda and ruling Akali Dal-BJP combine, have once again raised the issue of limits to freedom of expression.
Art 19 (a) of the Constitution gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression; but the first sub clause of the same article allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on its exercise in the interests of among other things, public order, decency or morality, and defamation or incitement to an offence.
Chandra Mohan's paintings of Shiv Linga, Goddess Durga and the Cross of Christ, while being an Artist's expression probably highlighting his own struggle with religion and erotica have certainly hurt the religious sentiments of both Hindus and Christians.
When such expression crosses the boundaries of public order, decency or morality, then they become offences under the Indian Penal code.
Chandra mohan was booked under Section 153 (A) for promoting religious enmity and hurting religious sentiments with nefarious intentions like creating riots.
He could have also been booked under Section 295 for defiling objects held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of insulting the religion.
He could have further been booked under section 295A for a Deliberate and malicious act, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or beliefs.
In the case of Dinakaran, the survey had a legitimate purpose. Karunanidhi is 84 years old and the question of his successor is quite definitely an issue for public debate, even if it hurts the sentiments of the family concerned.
Even the intentions of the publishers to publish the survey are a legitimate issue for debate, but cannot constitute an offence in the eyes of law.
It would be difficult to prove that the survey's intention was to cause defamation or incitement to an offence.
The case of the advertisement in Punjab newspapers showing Dera chief Baba Gurmeet Singh Ram Raheem distributing 'amrit' (nector) while attired in the dress of Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru, can be seen as an offence, since not all Sikh groups regard the Dera chief as their leader.
Whether Baba Gurmeet Singh intended to cause hurt to other Sikhs or equate himself with the 10th Sikh Guru is a matter for debate, but his actions have caused unlawful assembly and riots and he too could be booked under section 295 and 295A.
Violent Protests
It is quite another point that the reactions to these cases of freedom of expression have been violent.
The violent reactions in the case of the attack on Dinakaran newspaper led to the death of three persons.
They all constitute acts of unlawful assembly under section 141, joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons (section 142) and further the graver offence of Rioting under section 147 and rioting armed with deadly weapons under section 148. The punishment for these crimes is imprisonment for upto 2 years or fine.
Good Governance
But the larger question is one not defined by law. It is the role of the state in seeing that society does not become so easily intolerant.
The role of the state is in the broadest sense that of good governance.
Article 38 of the Constitution directs the state to strive to promote people's welfare by securing and protecting a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all institutions of national life.
The fact that peaceful protests are a means of democratic expression cannot be denied.
It is clear that the role of civil society in demanding good governance is a positive sign.
It is clear too that greater people's participation ensures accountability and makes democratic institutions stronger. But the converse of this is that an intolerant society is the result of ineffective governance.
Can we blame the growing intolerance in our society on social backwardness or on ineffective governance? The answer I believe is inthe latter because good governance will make for a cohesive society. - DDNews India
Comment and add to the story without registration, but keep the comments meaningful please. Links are not accepted.
