Well I am hurt today…really badly hurt. The Supreme Court of India feels that bloggers like you and me may face libel, even prosecution for voicing our views online. This was the one thing every Indian felt was on their side…the Judiciary. Sure it was slow and justice was delayed…but still it was not denied. The monumental role of Judiciary in cases like that of Jessica Lal, Sanjay Dutt, Nithari Killings etc gave us hope that at least one pillar of democracy is intact and is unaffected by the rust of time. We learnt how to live with corruption, nepotism, unstable coalitions, shouting and cursing MPs and MLAs and even made our peace with the stagnant state of affairs where nothing changes. The word CHANGE that re-wrote American history brings goose bumps to our "respected" politicians. (I am a scared Blogger now you know) But the SC can't do that to us. How can you take away the fundamental right of speech from a country of billions?
It all started when a blogger named Ajith D ,who is just 19 years of age, created a community on a social networking site which had many anonymous comments about a radical Hindu political party (I know the name…but still scared you know!) and how it is trying to divide the country. Note that it was an online community, not a BLOG. The party's Youth Wing (average age must have been 45 for this wing…that's pretty young in Indian Politics…damn I did it again…I am better off scared!) filed a complaint against Ajith and then SC came up with this point of view. The most astonishing part of this case, according to me, is that the comments were anonymous. How can you blame a person for the comments made on his community/blog by others? He just started a thread and people responded. If the idea was so ridiculous that it would hurt people's sentiments (as the SC described it) then why would people support it? An important point is that a blogger cannot be an uneducated or a person who could be easily molded. He is got to be a well educated, at least a middle class, intelligent guy who knows what he is doing. So instead of shutting him up in name of "Public Sentiments" shouldn't he be heard? Shouldn't he be asked why he has so strong views that he felt a need to form a community for similar-minded people? Or if that's a distant dream in a severely paralyzed democracy, at least let him speak his mind out!
What can we interpret from this? Are we not free to speak anymore? Or do we have to follow a particular code of conduct while expressing your views? Hilariously though, our expression would still be "FREE" and country still a "DEMOCRATIC". Why isn't a code of conduct for our MPs? Why does a 80 year old Mr.Somnath Chatterji has to shout at 500 odd 70 year olds to keep quiet and maintain decorum? Is it not pseudo Talibanisation? Is it not giving up in front of the radical fundamentalist goondas?
There have been landmark cases which change the course of any country's judiciary and people's mentality. Remember the "Kiranjeet Ahluwalia" case in England (on which Provoked was made)? It changed the meaning of the word Provocation in England's law books forever. May be the Ajith case would change the meaning of the phrase "FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION" in India's Constitution forever. For better or for the worse, time would tell. Till then we would be Rebels. We would be "Politically Incorrect" till a law stops us being so!
