Virus of intolerance shows up again in Karnataka riots
Democratic values enshrined in the Constitution are under renewed attack, this time in Karnataka. Following the publication of a translated version of controversial Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen's article which is critical of the burqa tradition in a respected Kannada daily, mobs have protested violently. Two people have lost their lives and the Mangalore office of the daily has been vandalised. The issue is complicated by the fact that Nasreen says the newspaper has distorted the original article written by her.
It is important that newspapers stick to a professional code of ethics in the interest of upholding the credibility of the fourth estate. If the accusations being made against the paper in question are true, condemnations are in order. But taking to the streets and inciting violence to register one's protest is absolutely unacceptable. The Constitution protects an individual's right to freedom of expression. Increasingly, this freedom is under attack in our country.
There are ample platforms available to counter opinions and protest against them in this country. But instead of using them and debating issues within a peaceful framework, lumpen elements find it both convenient and politically profitable to resort to violence. We have seen this play out repeatedly in Mumbai, where the Shiv Sena and MNS target non-Mumbaikars. It is reflected in the harassment of M F Husain by right-wing extremists and in the violent protests in Kolkata against granting Nasreen a visa extension a while ago. The Sri Ram Sene also opted for this route when it attacked pub-going women in Bangalore, in the name of protecting 'Indian culture'.
Self-appointed moral and religious police of various hues seem to be getting away with breaking the law even as the state stands by and watches. Political parties across the spectrum have displayed little will in taking on those who make a mockery of the fundamental principles that define our polity. Troublemakers must be told, firmly, where to get off. 'Hurt sentiments' are no justification to resort to violence. They do not feature among the provisions listed in the Constitution under which freedom of expression can be curtailed. Neither does the argument hold that it's better to avoid publication of certain views, on pragmatic grounds, since they might lead to violence. Once the message goes out that violence can prevent the expression of a point of view one doesn't approve of, it becomes an invitation to more violence. And that's unacceptable in a democratic society.
