timmytalkspulwama

[timmytalkspulwama]

Article 19(1) (a) states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. But this right is subject to limitations imposed under Article 19(2) which empowers the State to put ‘reasonable’ restriction on various grounds, namely, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement of offence, and integrity and sovereignty of India.

This right constitutes that a citizen of India has the freedom to express his/her views and convictions by words either written or spoken on any media namely print, social, radio or television. For India - the world’s largest democracy and a country known for its astounding mix of cultures, freedom of speech is one of the six pillars (fundamental rights) of India’s democratic setup.

The right to freedom of speech and expression does have a few restrictions though, which are mentioned in clause (2) article 19. Let us try and understand three key restrictions and check if the country’s so-called intellectuals and politicians exercise it responsibly or not.

1. Security of the state - The speeches or write-ups that incite rebellion or violent crimes that would sabotage the security of the state

2. Incitement to an offence - Exercising the right of freedom to incite people to commit an offence (an act punishable under law).

3. Public order - Public order comprises of the public peace, safety and tranquillity. Any form of expression by an individual that disturbs public peace or tranquillity or hampers the safety of people is an offence. Thus speeches, interviews or posts that trigger acts of communal violence and cause unrest are restricted.

Remarks, comments and speeches that sparked controversies

Over the period of the past few years celebrities, politicians belonging to opposition and ruling parties both and young university graduates seeking media attention have all used their respective rights to freedom of speech to an extent of almost misusing it. Most of these remarks are politically motivated and aim to leverage the friction created by them between two communities of the society and convert that to votes.

Image credit: indianexpress.com

Politically motivated provocative speeches

A politician who tops this list is Asaduddin Owaisi - the president of AIMIM, a party that aims to fight for the rights of Muslims.

Owaisi is the biggest proponent of the theory that Muslims across the country are oppressed and have never been a part of developed India’s dream.

Here are a few comments made by him or excerpts from his speeches

#1 BJP wants Muslim-mukt Bharat

#2 Vote to save Islam, take revenge of Qasim’s death

#3 Modi says perform yoga for health benefits, I say turn to Islam

#4 Every Muslim kid born in India will stand in front of Modi and say you are a murderer of our sisters

#5 For 70 years we Muslims have been oppressed, if you wish to keep secularism alive vote for Islam

#6 Bharat Ratna a ‘Brahmin club’

Reading these statements and then referring to the restrictions on freedom of speech mentioned at the start, almost all of them appear to be provoking and have potential to cause unrest. But the fact that these have not led an outright rebellion or instances of communal violence has saved Barrister-at-law - Owaisi from any criminal charges.

Tweets and remarks by other ‘intellectuals’

Similarly, comments by Aamir Khan, Kiran Rao and veteran actor Naseeruddin Shah on ‘intolerance’ in India are also 'theoretically’ within the limits of what is permitted under freedom of speech.

Image credit: The Financial Express

A never-ending tug-of-war between the leftist JNU and rightist ABVP comprise of many ostensibly provocative speeches.

A number of BJP ministers and party members have also spoken rubbish most of which was anti-muslim.

A slow poison

All these comments, remarks, speeches, write-ups are not deemed as punishable under law and rightly so as they did not 'directly’ incite communal violence or undermine public tranquillity.

But these statements that were listened or read by Muslims across the country may well have planted a small seed of hatred towards other communities and a slight sense of insecurity in their minds.

The terrorist organizations based out of Pakistan thrive on this such sentiments and rigorously water these seeds of hatred until the roots of it are firmly planted in one’s mind.

Identifying such individuals especially youngsters who are high on adrenaline is pretty easy for these terrorist outfits. Social media plays a significant role in helping to identify such youngsters.

Consequences - the poison starts to spread

The prime suspect in the recent Pulwama attack in which 40 CRPF soldiers were martyred, Adil Ahmad Dar was a 20-year old youngster who led a normal life until a year back when he left home to join Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) - a terror outfit who claimed responsibility for the attack.

Image credit: India Today

Adil Dar’s mother stated that in 2016 he was harassed by Indian troops. Though this could have been a significant factor that pushed him into militancy, seeds of it probably were sown way before that. Perhaps when as a teenager Dar read an 'intolerance’ tweet or listened to a hate speech.

The constitution of India does give us a complete right to freedom of speech and expression but we Indians seem to be taking it for granted and are using it for selfish reasons. Using it morally and responsibly is essential to avoid any more Indians being pulled into militancy.

Fighting for the rights of minorities, opposing the government policies or standing for it is a part of an individual's freedom to voice his/her opinion but it should not be done through provocation.

Thus I urge you’ll to mind your ’(freedom of) speech’