मैं और मेरे सच्चे विचार। A honest view of a Proud PIO who follows Sanatan Dharm (Hindu).
कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोस्त्वकर्मणि॥
— भगवद्गीता २-४७
karmaṇyevādhikāraste mā phaleṣu kadācana|
mā karmaphalaheturbhūrmā te saṅgostvakarmaṇi||
— bhagavadgītā 2-47
"Your right is to work only, but never to the fruit thereof. Be not instrumental in making your actions bear fruit, nor let your attachment be to inaction."
Shouting Fire: The Edge of Free Speech HBO Documentary
The first amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states that Congress will make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," but the fact that the Bill of Rights protects free speech doesn't mean that everyone likes it. Expressing controversial or unpopular opinions has sometimes caused people to be silenced by others, and in the wake of the 9/11 terrorists attacks, some Americans have found that speech isn't always as free as they'd imagine. Shouting Fire, a riveting exploration of the current state of free speech in America is crucially relevant. Interweaving historical cases-The New York Times' fight to publish the Pentagon Papers and the Nazis' insistence on marching in Skokie, IL. among them-with contemporary free-speech battles, the film documents the way both the Right and the Left have lashed out in fear. We think of First Amendment rights as inviolable; but in fact, they're profoundly vulnerable. Prominent First Amendment attorney--and the filmmaker's father-Martin Garbus, leads us through this perilous landscape and wisely warns, if we don't fight for our freedoms every day, we will lose them.
===========Forwarded Message=========== To, Faculty & Staff, Harvard University
Dear Sir/Madam, I am absolutely appalled and would like to register my protest against your injudicious and illadvised decision to remove Economics Professor Dr. Subramanian Swamy from teaching roster. (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/) Dr. Swamy is not some unknown new figure at Harvard rather a respected faculty member, whose so far proud association with the University goes back at least 4 decades. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IteO05kaY-8) I do not find any merit in your argument to classify his article "How to wipe out Islamic terror" as hate speech. Bold and alternative political speech may be, but far from hate speech. (http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe-out-islamic-terror-dr-subramaniam-swamy/) He was merely exercising his basic human right of Right to Free Speech guaranteed under our First Amendment, which even protects, as it should, worst of the worse hate speeches. With all due respect, your unwise decision smacks of clear ideological and selection biases, and decision process influenced by emotions and various cognitive traps such as anchoring and confirming evidence.
Expression of Free Speech especially alternative Political & Religious viewpoints are basic human needs and these should not be denied to anyone. Political and Hate Speech are both protected under First Amendment as they are subjective. Because who is to decide what is hate speech and what is not? You, me or other Harvard faculty? Just because I don't agree with what some other person said in his personal capacity, I have no Right to discriminate against him because of his political or religious views. It is very unfortunate that some of the Harvard faculty members have allegedly let their personal ideology and religious biases affect their professional decision making process. It a matter of shame and grave concern that Harvard has reprimanded Dr. Swamy for his protected political speech, which he gave in a different country on a topic which is completely unrelated to what he teaches at Harvard in the US.
Dr. Swamy is an Economics professor and Harvard administration has a right to judge his subject knowledge merits and teaching history only. Certainly not on the basis of what religious or political ideology he ascribes to or on grounds of his protected political speech. It is an alleged case of discrimination based on political ideology and civil liberties violated. This is a very bad precedence unwittingly set by Harvard which may have a chilling effect on the campus as student and faculty will now be scared to freely share and speak alternative viewpoints. Best way to deal with hate speech is either debate it or ignore it. Harvard allegedly did neither in case of Dr. Swamy. If the faculty found his views distasteful, why didn't they challenge him for an open debate to publicly present and defend his views rather than unilaterally punishing him for speaking his mind in personal capacity? This may set an unhealthy precedence as per which every Harvard faculty member may now be held accountable and may face excoriation, at the whims of Harvard's few biased faculty members, for anything he or she may say anywhere in world, without being given any fair chance to defend himself or herself. Should all those anti-Swamy faculty members who spearheaded this allegedly prejudicial campaign against Dr. Swamy's free speech be now held accountable in India for what these people say, write or print in the US? Reprehensible. Correct, Dean Pfister?
What is even more ridiculous is that those who decided and coerced other faculty members to drop Dr. Swamy's courses are not even related to his subject of expertise. Could Harvard please explain to us how and why is a History Professor Sugata Bose, known for his far-Left political ideology, deciding if Dr. Swamy should continue to teach Economics? That too when Dr. Swamy wasn't even present there to defend himself. What Economics subject credentials does Prof Bose have to decide Dr. Swamy's courses fate? How Dr. Swamy's personal viewpoints on how to deal with terrorism in India can be used as a yardstick to censor him in the US and throw out his economics courses? How can Dr. Swamy's protected political speech on dealing with terrorism in India influence his capabilities to teach Economics in US? There is no bridge between these two acts then how can he be reprimanded for it? This is essentially Heckler's Veto to curb Dr. Swamy's civil liberties. Will Harvard now reprimand anyone whose political and religious views doesn't align with few of its faculty's political leaning?
It is sad to see that Philosophy Department Chair Sean Kelly got "persuaded" to be part of those who like to censor others protected political speech.
Let us consider the faculty's justification to censor Dr. Swamy. Is the faculty claiming that there is no Islamic terror in the world? As per terrorism research experts, there have been over 18000 Islamic terrorist attacks (small to big events classified by number of people murdered) in the world since 9/11. Just because main stream media doesn't cover all them doesn't mean these attacks aren't happening. I am sure all you learned people have heard of Schrödinger's cat experiment. India has been suffering at the hands of Muslim extremists for over 25 years. Third anniversary of brutal 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai just passed a few days ago. Do you expect Dr. Swamy and other Indians to simply ignore these facts because Harvard faculty is just too uncomfortable and sensitive to face the truth? Political correctness cannot be an excuse for poltroonery and censorship.
Until a few decades ago, it was mostly Pakistan sponsored terrorists attacking India. Since past decade, various domestic terrorist groups like Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Popular Front of India (PFI), Indian Mujahideen, etc. have also started committing terrorist attacks in India. Now it is clear that US citizens are involved in worldwide terrorist activities also. As exposed by PBS Frontline-ProPublica (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/david-headley/), American-born Dawood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley was one of the main co-conspirators of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. He was trained and indoctrinated in Islamic theology by Pakistani intelligence agency ISI. Then there is Faisal Shazad (Times Square bomber), Major Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Anwar Al-Awaki, Underwear bomber, et.al. Unfortunately they are all self-proclaimed Islamic terrorists. You cannot just brush these facts under the carpet.
It is not Dr. Swamy who is calling Muslim terrorists as Islamic terrorists, rather it is these terrorists themselves who are proudly proclaiming themselves to be Mujahideen i.e. Islamic warriors fighting for Allah.Then why is Harvard allegedly punishing Dr. Swamy for speaking against these self-proclaimed Islamic warriors? Why is Harvard allegedly shooting the messenger? There is no line, let me say it again, there is no line in that article where Dr. Swamy has "demonized an entire religious community" as terrorists. I am sorry to say but Professor Diana Eck is wrong and her inference is grossly exaggerated. There is no way all of the decision making faculty members could have construed Dr. Swamy's argument as a call for destruction of religious places. This shows a clear case of selection bias and anchoring. Dr. Swamy said the following (an excerpt from the article),
In a brilliant research paper published by Robert Trager and Dessislava Zagorcheva this year (‘Deterring Terrorism’ International Security, vol 30, No 3, Winter 2005/06, pp 87-123) has provided the general principles to structure such a strategy.
Goal-strategy
Applying these principles, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India, provided the Muslim community fail to condemn these goals and call them un-Islamic:
Goal 2: Blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees.
Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple complex, and 300 others in other sites as a tit-for-tat.
Dr. Swamy has not proposed that Hindus or Government of India should proactively remove Mosques (aka masjid) rather as a consequence of an unfortunate event (tit-for-tat). As per his proposal, if Islamic terrorists continue to blast Hindu temples and devotees then instead of cowing down, remove their controversial Mosques from encroached land. For those who may not know, Kashi aka Varanasi is the holiest site in the world for Hindus just like Kabba is for Muslims and Wailing wall is for Jews. About 600 years ago a Muslim bandit ruler ordered destruction of Holy Hindu temple of Kashi Vishwanathji and built a Mosque on top of it, compare it to Dome of Rock controversy. Not only at Kashi but Muslim Mughal bandit rulers did the same to prime Hindu temples at other holy sites such as Ayodhya, Mathura, Somnath, etc. Can you see a pattern? Prof Diana Eck is a professor of comparative religious studies, she ought to know better. Rather than thinking rationally, some faculty decision makers seem to have taken an extreme position influenced by an emotional reaction to a rational viewpoint (based on well thought out research).
For the sake of argument let us agree for a moment with the standards that Harvard faculty has applied to misconstrue Dr. Swamy's free speech as hate speech. Then the same standards should be applied to the following,
Quran (2:190-193) - "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants.
Quran (9:73) - O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination
Quran (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise
Quran (56:92-94) - But if he is of the rejecters, the erring, then the welcome will be boiling water and roasting at hell-fire
Quran (5:60) - Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
Bukhari (59:727) - Allah's Apostle [said]... "Allah's curse be on the Jews and the Christians"
Verse 59:727 was spoken on Mohamed's death bed, and was one of the last things that he ever said. Isn't Mohamed preaching annihilation of non-Muslims? Hasn't Mohamed crossed the line by demonizing an entire non-Muslim religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places? So would the esteemed faculty at Harvard now call for censorship of Quran, Hadith, Sira and other Islamic texts and publicly reprimand Mohamed for hate speech? Would Harvard now stop giving courses in Islamic theology? Would Harvard now cancel classes by Professors who euoligize Mohamed and teach such hate speech? Would Harvard now throw out students who emulate Mohamed? If no then isn't it hypocrisy on part of the same decision making faculty and Harvard administration? Standards set and enforced by the faculty in Dr. Swamy's case should be unambiguously applied in this case also.
Since Harvard is willing to overlook Dr. Swamy's professional accumen and rather use his personal views as a yardstick to decide if he should continue, let us analyze this fallacy also. Dr. Swamy has already publicly clarrified in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3lv71xEBs0 that he doesn't have any problem with Muslims. He is one of the most pluralist public figure I have ever known of.He is a Hindu who is married to a Parsi (Zorashtrian) and one of his daughter is married to a Muslim. Cannot get more Secular than that.
Now lest I am accused of being some fringe Right winger, let me prove my Centrist credentials by giving another rational argument that will sound tune to the Leftist gallery. For those who may not know, Dr. Swamy, as a lawyer, has been spearheading a massive anti-graft lawsuit against some of the most corrupt and powerful politicians and corporates in the world who have allegedly committed at least $50 Billion scam during the distribution 2G spectrum in India. Think of it as the Occupy Wall Street but this one actually works, and has a clear direction and goals. The anti-corruption movement has a leader in Dr. Swamy, who has already fell many politicians, bureaucrats and corporate heads, and there are some big fishes yet to be brought to book. One of the alleged corrupt big fish is ironically a Harvard alumni. Now since Harvard disassociated itself from Dr. Swamy's political viewpoints on terrorism, hence, by applying its faculty's logic as a corollary we can inference that Harvard would not agree with Dr. Swamy's political position on bringing corrupt individuals including the alleged person who is also a Harvard alumni to justice. Therefore, it may be concluded that Harvard supports corruption in Politics and Business. Sounds weird right? Doesn't make sense as this sounds like a far-fetched conclusion. Harvard would never support corruption. So now you can see how some of your biased faculty's emotional argument, that there is a connection between a political speech on the menace of theologically sanctioned terror and teaching economics, sounds-like to a rational mind.
In the end I would like to thank you for reading my protest letter and I hope some sanity will prevail in Harvard administration. I hope that you will promptly apologize to Dr. Subramanian Swamy, reinstate his popular courses without prejudice, and invite him back with all due courtesy. Please null and void this reprehensible precedence set by Harvard, before it is too late. My respects where due as I mean no malice to anyone. Just speaking against the injustice done.
Now Steve Job's Apple submits to Islamic threat and suppresses free speech of an App developer. They first approved an App "iSlam Muhammad" and then removed it from their iTunes/iPhone/iPod Touch Store.
Following is the voice recording of Apple executive calling to inform App developer that they are censoring his free speech.
In continuance with the show of Arrogance and Holier-than-thou attitude, allegedly one of the most corrupt Union Telecom Minister of previous and present Muslim Rightist Congress led UPA Government Mr. A Raja from Anti-Hindu DMK gagged the Freedom of Speech and Press. He has also been alleged of misusing his office to influence the independence of Judiciary in court cases. You can read about his many corruption cases here, here and here. He is allegedly involved in "Overnight Crorepati" scandal as his wife M.A.Parmeshwari's company grew from 0 to 755 Crore (75.5 Billion) in one year.
Such a vicious attempt to gag Freedom of Speech by Union Minister shouldn't come as a surprise because so tried the lady presently controlling the country Antonia Maino aka Sonia Gandhi. She tried to suppress the freedom of speech of Hindu-Sikh Indian Americans but the American courts upheld the First Amendment and threw the no locus-standi case out. God bless America! Unfortunately, in Bharat things aren't that easy and courts aren't that friendly. Politicians gag freedom of speech right, left and center. Remember how freedom of speech and Right to Communicate of Hindus was gagged during Shri Amarnath Yatra struggle. Citizen's SMS and Text Messages were blocked and Cable News Channels were censored in Jammu. Citizens were protesting for Hindu Civil Rights and Liberties of Freedom to Practice Religion. Hindu Pilgrims were unethically and immorally denied land to stay by Muslim Rightist Congress and Anti-Hindu Anti-India PDP under pressure from Muslim Fundamentalists and Extremists like Anti-India Hurriyat.
Luckily, in Mr. Raja's case Justice K Chandru of Madras High Court has vacated the gag order and fined Mr. Raja. Following is the Judgment Order from the Judgment Information System of Madras High Court for reader's benefit. It's a must read! It is also available at Case Status Information System of Indian Courts. Then after it are some articles about the Judgment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.07.2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
O.A.NO.420 OF 2009 and APPLICATION NO.2919 OF 2009 IN C.S.NO.366 OF 2009
1.A.Raja 2.M.A.Parameswari Both residing at No.3/87, South Street, Vellore Village, Perambalur Village and District .. Applicants in OA No.420 of 2009 and Respondents 1 and 2 in A.No.2919 of 2009 Vs. 1.P.Srinivasan Publisher & Printer of Junior Vikatan, Vasan Publications Private Limited, No.757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2.K.Ashokan, Editor, Vasan Publications Private Limited, No.757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 3.Saroj Ganpath, Chief Reporter, Junior Vikatan, No.757, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. .. Respondents 1 to 3 in OA No.420 of 2009 and Applicants in A.No.2919 of 2009 4.Prakash Jawadekar No.521, V.P.House, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001. .. Respondent No.4 in OA No.420 of 2009 and Respondent No.3 in A.No.2919 of 2009
OA No.420 of 2009 is filed seeking to grant an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 3/defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents, staff, subordinates or any person claim through or on behalf from in any way printing, publishing and circulating the defamatory news items and the photographs of the applicants/plaintiffs family or publishing any caricature or fudged photographs of mine or the photographs of the applicants/plaintiffs minor daughter in their bi-weekly magazine "Junior Vikatan" in any manner causing damages to the reputation of the applicants/plaintiffs without seeking any clarification from the applicants/plaintiffs. A.No.2919 of 2009 is filed seeking to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 28.4.2009 in OA No.420 of 2009. For applicants/ plaintiffs : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, SC for Mr.P.Wilson Associates
For respondents /defendants 1 to 3 : Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, SC for M/s.R.Sunilkumar & Sundar Narayan - - - -
ORDER
The opinion of Justice Goldberg, with whom Justice Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed, gave their concurring opinion in the Sullivan's case (New York Times Vs. Sullivan, 376 US 254), which will set the tone for a decision in this case. This judgment was quoted with approval by Courts in India. Their opinion on libel action of public figures may be reproduced below:- "... In my view, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution afford to the citizen and to the press an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official conduct despite the harm which may flow from excesses and abuses. ... The right should not depend upon a probing by the jury of the motivation of the citizen or press. The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious. In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized. Such criticism cannot, in my opinion, be muzzled or deterred by the courts at the instance of public officials under the label of libel. ... In a democratic society where men are free by ballots to remove those in power, any statement critical of government action is necessarily "of and concerning" that governors and any statement critical of the governors' official conduct is necessarily "of and concerning" the government. If the rule that libel on government has no place in our Constitution is to have real meaning, then libel on the official conduct of the governors likewise can have no place in our Constitution." (Emphasis added)
2.Commenting on the Sullivan's case, Chicago Law School Professor of Jurisprudence Cass R.Sunstein, in his article "A New Deal for Speech" (Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (New York Free Press, 1993)), wrote as follows:- "It is striking that in Sullivan, the lower court held that the common law of tort, and more particularly libel, was not state action at all, and was therefore entirely immune from constitutional constraint. A civil action, on this view, involved a purely private dispute. The Supreme Court quickly disposed of this objection, as seems obviously right. The use of public tribunals to punish speech is conspicuously state action. What is interesting is not the Supreme Court's rejection of the argument, but the fact that the argument could be made by a state supreme court as late as the 1960s. How could reasonable judges perceive the rules of tort law as purely private?"
3.The present suit is filed by the two plaintiffs, who are also husband and wife. The first plaintiff is presently a Cabinet Minister holding the Heavy Industries Portfolio and former Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology. The second plaintiff claims to be enrolled as a bar member. The suit is filed for claiming damages of Rs.One Crore from defendants 1 to 4 to the first plaintiff and Rs.25 lakhs to the second plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 18% for having carried out defamatory publications in the bi-weekly "Junior Vikatan" published by the first respondent in their various issues dated 16.4.2008, 19.10.2008, 19.11.2008, 26.11.2008, 03.12.2008 and 24.12.2008. 4.Apart from the claim for relief of damages, the suit also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from printing, publishing and circulating the defamatory news items and photographs of the plaintiffs family for publishing any caricature and fudged photographs of the first plaintiff or the photographs of the plaintiffs' minor daughter in the Junior Vikatan, thereby causing damages to the reputation of the plaintiffs and without seeking clarification from the plaintiffs. The suit was presented before this court on 22.4.2009 and was admitted on 27.4.2009. Pending the suit, an interim relief was sought for, which has been noted elsewhere. 5.By an interim order dated 28.4.2009, this court after holding that there was a prima facie case restraining respondents 1 to 3 from carrying out of articles of similar nature and photographs of the applicants' family members, including their minor daughter without seeking any clarification from the applicants/plaintiffs. This injunction was restricted to last till 15.6.2009. However, the matter came to be listed before this Court on 8.7.2009., when the respondents 1 to 3 took out Judges summons in Application No.2919 of 2009 for vacating the interim order. When the matter came up on 8.7.2009, the counsel for the plaintiff sought for time to file a reply affidavit and for extension of the interim order pending final orders. The same was granted by this court on that day. Subsequently, the applicants have also filed a reply affidavit, dated 12.7.2009. 6.The case of the applicants is that the Junior Vikatan published by the first respondent, has been continuously publishing news items and self write ups alleging irregularities in the conduct of the applicants. They were constantly defaming them with baseless and false allegations. Inspite of the clarification by the Department of Telecommunication on the 'Spectrum issue', the respondents were bent upon harassing them with frivolous and vexatious defamatory articles and write ups. Such articles were published with extraneous considerations and to satisfy their political opponents and for boosting the sale of the magazine. It was also alleged that the respondents have failed in their primary duty of verifying the veracity and correctness of the statements before publishing. The photographs which accompanies such write ups were in poor taste and there has been a fudging of the photographs in the cover page of the magazine, dated 20.4.2008. In the very same issue, the family photographs of the plaintiffs along with their minor daughter was also published, which had not only put them to embarrassment, but also violated their right to privacy. With reference to the the alleged connection of the applicants with M/s.Green House Promoters Private Ltd. and M/s.Equaas Estates Private Limited, the transactions were straight forward and the publications made in this regard were invented, false, frivolous and made with mala fide motives. 7.It was also stated that because of the general elections to the parliament to be held during May, 2009 and the first applicant being a DMK party candidate for the Nilagiry Parliamentary constituency, there has been conspiracy to bring out various defamatory articles. Such articles were published without any prior verification. The respondents should be restrained from making any future publication. Any such allowance in this regard will hamper his prospects of his getting elected. Therefore, both on a prima facie case and on balance of convenience, an order of restraint should be passed. 8.By virtue of the interim order, the applicants were successful in preventing the magazine from publishing any articles. It is also now made known that the first applicant has got elected and had become a cabinet Minister having the Heavy Industries Portfolio. 9.In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 dated 29.06.2009, it is asserted by the respondents, that the news items published by the Junior Vikatan will show that they have commented on the news concerning the acts and conduct of the first applicant in the discharge of his public duties as a Union Minister of Communication and Information Technology as well as the position held by the second applicant in the two companies referred to above. There was no comment on the private life of the applicants. It was also stated that the respondents have published the news based on news and proceedings in the parliament in the public domain and also on the basis of the documents that the second applicant held the position of the Director during the time the spectrum space was allotted to the company. It was also stated that the act of the respondents are not even remotely categorized as defamatory. 10.It was further stated that the Ananda Vikatan a Weekly magazine of the same group was founded in the year 1926 and during its 83 years of existence, several leading personalities were associated with the magazine. The 'Junior Vikatan' published by the same group had strived to achieve excellence in the field of journalism and never resorted to sinister methods for the sake of increasing circulations. The counter affidavit elaborately dealt with the basis of which such write ups were published. It is unnecessary to reproduce the same as such defence will be put before the trial. Even on the publication of the photographs in the cover page as well as in its inner pages, it was stated that it was not done with a view to cause embarrassment or malign the family. The family photograph published in the weekly was taken in a public function held that JK Mahal at Perambalur, which was organized to celebrate the electoral victory of the first applicant in May, 2004 assembly elections. The family members had happily posed for the media photographs. 11.With reference to the allegation that a response sent by the second applicant through e-mail was never received by the magazine. The e-mail ID given in the affidavit is not the e-mail ID of the magazine. When a denial was made by M/s.Equaas Estate Private Limited, a corrigendum was promptly published by the magazine in its issue, dated 15.2.2009. It was also stated that the respondents have fairly commented on the issue regarding improper allocation of 2G spectrum services by the Government of India and the people of India have a right to be informed about the same. 12.On the question of prior restraint, it was stated that there was no allegation on the private life of the applicants and no right of privacy of the applicants were violated. It is fairly asserted that the articles published by the Junior Vikatan constitute fair and bona fide comments on a matter of national interest. Material facts were truly stated in the articles and it was published bona fide. The articles were guided by principles of objectivity and fairness. It is also submitted that several other newspapers and magazines in India had carried such stories and the issue has become a topic for a nation wide debate. 13.It is in the light of the rival submissions, the contentions of the parties will have to be considered. Before Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants had advanced his arguments, Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 fairly stated that though there was no illegality in publishing of the family photographs including the minor daughter of the applicants, the Junior Vikatan had undertaken that in future, they will not publish the photographs of the applicants' minor daughter and hence this Court's attention need not be vexed on the question of publication of the photograph of a minor child. The prayer made in this regard can be closed. 14.Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the right of privacy of any person is sacro sanct and therefore, no amount of press freedom can intrude into the private lives of individuals. He also stated that the injunction granted earlier was only on the basis of a prima facie opinion and there is no necessity to vary the same. He also referred to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in R.Rajagopal's case reported in 2006 (2) MLJ 689, wherein this court also granted a restraint order and demanded submitting of articles for prior verification. He also referred to the reply affidavit filed by the applicants, dated 12.7.2009 and stated that a report by another newspaper did not give rise to the respondents to reproduce the same in their magazine with imputations so as to defame the applicants. There was no reasonable verification about the truth and veracity. The issues published are not social issues and it affects the rights of the applicants. It was also submitted that a challenge to the policy in the allocation of spectrum was pending in a public interest litigation before the Delhi High Court. When the fourth respondent interview was quoted in the magazine, no clarification was sought from the applicants. Though the fourth respondent is a Member of Parliament, he belonged to the BJP party. Since no clarifications were received from the two companies referred to above, the articles cannot be said to be based on any objective motive. The learned Senior Counsel also stated that the respondents have not stated that what was written was truth. The tenor of an article must be to find out the truth and not to publish some other reports so as to further defame any person and call it as truth. There must be a duty to make investigation about the veracity of such publications. He also referred to paras 10 and 11 of the plaint for justification in the grant of a prior restraint order. 15.In reply, Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for RR1 to 3 contended that the issue relating to the damages claimed to be contested by them in the trial and the present issue related to the prior restraint on the magazine. If granted it violates the fundamental right of the respondents granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He also stated that the intention of the applicants to get a gag order is to restrain the magazine from publishing any news item during elections and he has also succeeded in silencing future publications. Therefore, a great damage has been done to public good by preventing the magazine in bringing out issues on current affairs, which have a bearing on the conduct of the applicants. The applicants have not made out any case for prior restraint and the issue of the truth or veracity of the published items will have to be relegated to the main suit. 16.In this context, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court, which may have bearing on the relief claimed by the applicants. 17.Speaking about the freedom of the press, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lokvidayan Sanghatana and others reported in (1988) 3 SCC 410 has observed in para 6 "Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is always very zealously guarded by this Court."
18.While reiterating the same principle, the Supreme Court in its judgment in S.Rangarajan Vs. P.Jagjivan Ram and others reported in (1989) 2 SCC 574 has held as follows: "45.The problem of defining the area of freedom of expression when it appears to conflict with the various social interests enumerated under Article 19(2) may briefly be touched upon here. There does indeed have to be a compromise between the interest of freedom of expression and special interests. But we cannot simply balance the two interests as if they are of equal weight. Our commitment of freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the expression should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a "spark in a power keg"." (Emphasis added)
19.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 had laid down the primary duty of the Courts is to invalidate all laws and administrative actions which interferes with press freedom, thereby interfering with constitutional freedoms. The following passage found in para 32 in the judgment may be extracted below:- "32.In today's free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being purveyors of news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be palatable to governments and other authorities. The authors of the articles which are published in newspapers have to be critical of the actions of Government in order to expose its weaknesses. Such articles tend to become an irritant or even a threat to power. Governments naturally take recourse to suppress newspapers publishing such articles in different ways. Over the years, Governments in different parts of the world have used diverse methods to keep press under control. They have followed carrot-and-stick methods. Secret payments of money, open monetary grants and subventions, grants of lands, postal concessions, Government advertisements, conferment of titles on editors and proprietors of newspapers, inclusion of press barons in cabinet and inner political councils etc. constitute one method of influencing the press. The other kind of pressure is one of using force against the press. Enactment of laws providing for pre-censorship, seizures, interference with the transit of newspapers and demanding security deposit, imposition of restriction on the price of newspapers, on the number of pages of newspapers and the area that can be devoted for advertisements, withholding of Government advertisements, increase of postal rates, imposition of taxes on newsprint, canalisation of import of newsprint with the object of making it unjustly costlier etc. are some of the ways in which Governments have tried to interfere with freedom of press. It is with a view to checking such malpractices which interfere with free flow of information, democratic constitutions all over the world have made provisions guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression laying down the limits of interference with it. It is, therefore, the primary duty of all the national courts to uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with it, contrary to the constitutional mandate." (Emphasis added)
20.While going through a news item, the courts have emphasized the culture of "responsible reading". The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Ajay Goswami Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2007) 1 SCC 143 had dealt with such an issue and the passages found in paras 78 and 79 may be extracted below:- "78.Be that as it may, the respondents are leading newspapers in India and they have to respect the freedom of speech and expression as is guaranteed by our Constitution and in fact reaches out to its readers any responsible and decent manner. In our view, any steps to ban publishing of certain news pieces or pictures would fetter the independence of free press which is one of the hallmarks of our democratic set-up. In our opinion, the submissions and the propositions of law made by the respective counsel for the respondents clearly established that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has failed to establish the need and requirement to curtail the freedom of speech and expression. ... 79.We are also of the view that a culture of "responsible reading" should be inculcated among the readers of any news article. No news item should be viewed or read in isolation. It is necessary that a publication must be judged as a whole and news items, advertisements or passages should not be read without the accompanying message that is purported to be conveyed to the public. Also the members of the public and readers should not look for meanings in a picture or written article, which are not conceived to be conveyed through the picture or the news item." (Emphasis added)
21.In these days of fundamental Right to Information, the Supreme Court in its judgment in Union of India Vs. Association for Demoratic Reforms and another reported in (2002) 5 SCC 294 upheld an order of the Election Commission of India to make the candidates in an election to disclose all vital informations regarding their life to the voters so that there will be purity in election. The following passage found in para 22 of the judgment may be reproduced below:- "22.For health of democracy and fair election, whether the disclosure of assets by a candidate, his/her qualification and particulars regarding involvement in criminal cases are necessary for informing voters, may be illiterate, so that they can decide intelligently, whom to vote for. In our opinion, the decision of even an illiterate voter, if properly educated and informed about the contesting candidate, would be based on his own relevant criteria of selecting a candidate. In democracy, periodical elections are conducted for having efficient governance for the country and for the benefit of citizens voters. In a democratic form of government, voters are of utmost importance. They have right to elect or re-elect on the basis of the antecedents and past performance of the candidate. The voter has the choice of deciding whether holding of educational qualification or holding of property is relevant for electing or re-electing a person to be his representative. Voter has to decide whether he should cast vote in favour of a candidate who is involved in a criminal case. For maintaining purity of elections and a healthy democracy, voters are required to be educated and well informed about the contesting candidates. Such information would include assets held by the candidate, his qualification including educational qualification and antecedents of his life including whether he was involved in a criminal case and if the case is decided its result, if pending whether charge is framed or cognizance is taken by the court. There is no necessity of suppressing the relevant facts from the voters." (Emphasis added)
22.After summarising all the leading cases (both Foreign and Indian Courts), a division bench of this Court presided by A.P.Shah, C.J. (as he then was) in its judgment in R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal and another Vs. Ms.J.Jayalalitha and another reported in (2006) 2 MLJ 689 laid down the parameters of a prior restraint orders to be given by Courts. The relevant passages found in paragraphs 29 to 31 may be usefully extracted below:- "29.The fundamental right of freedom of speech is involved in these proceedings and not merely the right of liberty of the press. If this action can be maintained against a newspaper, it can be maintained against every private citizen who ventures to criticise the ministers who are temporarily conducting the affairs of the Government. In a free democratic society those who hold office in Government and who are responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to stifle or fetter such criticism amounts to political censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind. As observed in Kartar Singh's case (supra) the persons holding public offices must not be thin-skinned with reference to the comments made on them and even where they know that the observations are undeserved and unjust, they must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time. At times public figures have to ignore vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them and they must restrain themselves from giving importance to the same by prosecuting the person responsible for the same. In the instant case, the respondents have already chosen to claim damages and their claim is yet to be adjudicated upon. They will have remedy if the statements are held to be defamatory or false and actuated by malice or personal animosity. 30.As observed in R.Rajagopal's case (supra) the right to privacy has two aspects which are but two faces of the same coin. First the general law of privacy which offers a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and secondly, the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful Government invasion. Though the right to privacy can be characterised as a fundamental right, as held in R.Rajagopal's case (supra) it is not an absolute right. In Time, Inc v. Hill 385 US 374 it was pointed out that in the case of public officials, insofar as their official function is involved, they are substantially without a right to privacy and factual error and content defamatory of official reputation or both, are insufficient for the award of damages for false statements unless actual malice-knowledge that the statements are false or reckless disregard of the truth is alleged and proved. In a democratic set up a close and microscopic examination of private lives of public men is the natural consequence of holding of public offices. What is good for a private citizen who does not come within the public gaze may not be true of a person holding public office. What a person holding public office does within the four walls of his house does not totally remain a private matter. We agree with Mr.Jothi that the scrutiny of public figures by media should not also reach a stage where it amounts to harassment to the public figures and their family members and they must be permitted to live and lead their life in peace. But the public gaze cannot be avoided which is a necessary corollary of their holding public offices. 31.We are also unable to accept the submission advanced by Mr.Jothi that the appellants should be asked to seek prior verification from the respondents before publishing any articles and publish the denial, if any, of the respondents. According to Mr.Jothi rule of prior verification is laid down in R.Rajagopal's case (supra). We are afraid that the submission of the learned counsel is based on total mis-interpretation of the observations of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not laid down that the prior verification of the facts is must in all such cases. All that the Supreme Court indicated is that the proof that the member of the press or media acted after a reasonable verification of the facts would be sufficient. However, at the same time, it must be noted that the Supreme Court in R.Rajagopal's case (supra) has clearly held that a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and education, among other matters, and none can publish anything in reference to the above matters without his/her consent-whether laudatory or critical." (Emphasis added)
23.The Supreme Court in its judgment in R.Rajagopal alias R.R.Gopal and another Vs. State of T.N. and others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 632 had summarised the broad principles regarding the right to privacy. Their summary found in para 26 may be usefully extracted below:- "26.We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from the above discussion: (1)The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy. (2)The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a mater becomes a mater of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interest of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being published in press/media. (3)There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above indeed, this is not an exception but a independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule. (4)So far as the Government, local authority and other organs and institutions exercising governmental power are concerned, they cannot maintain a suit for damages for defaming them. (5)Rules 3 and 4 do not, however, mean that Official Secrets Act, 1923, or any similar enactment or provision having the force of law does not bind the press or media. (6)There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit, or to impose a prior restraint upon the press/media. 27.We may hasten to add that the principles above mentioned are only the broad principles. They are neither exhaustive nor all-comprehending; indeed no such enunciation is possible or advisable. As rightly pointed out by Mathew, J., this right has to go through a case-by-case development. The concepts dealt with herein are still in the process of evolution." (Emphasis added)
24.A careful perusal of the materials enclosed along with the plaint and the averments made in the affidavit do not indicate either any prima facie case or balance of convenience in the grant of a prior restraint order on the respondents. On the contrary, all news items related to the conduct of the applicants in public domain and not relate to any of their private life. Since the respondents have voluntarily stated that they will not publish in future the photograph of the minor child, the court is not concerned about the legality or otherwise of such publication in respect of the prayer made in the application. 25.But with reference to the truth or otherwise of the published materials, this Court is not inclined to render any findings less it may affect the outcome of the suit even before trial. 26.But with reference to the prior restraint on the respondents magazine, it is suffice to state that the people of India are entitled to know the public activities of any person who holds a public office. The Supreme Court in the case filed by Association for Democratic Reforms (cited supra) had clearly set out that the right of the citizens to know several details of a candidate who is standing on the election which includes assets held by him, his qualifications and antecedents of his life, including involvement in criminal case. Therefore, when a person stands in an election, he cannot deny right to know about several personal information which may include even antecedents of his life as held by the Supreme Court. Even a right to privacy of a public figure gets circumscribed when he stands in an Election as a candidate. 27.As held in R.Rajagopal's case (cited supra), in case of public officials, even the remedy for action for damages is not available with respects to their acts and conduct relevant to discharge of their official duties. It was also held that there was no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit or to impose a prior restraint upon the press. It has been indicated by the Supreme Court in Ajay Goswami's case (cited supra) that a news item cannot be read in isolation and the publication must be judged as a whole. Any attempt to stifle or fetter the criticisms will amount to political censorship and the Supreme Court has held such attempts as insidious and objectionable. The Supreme Court in the R.Rajagopal's case (cited supra), has clearly held that at times public figures have to ignore vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them. It was also held that when a person holding public office does within the four walls in his house does not totally remain the private matter. The public gaze cannot be avoided which is a necessary corollary of a person holding public office. 28.In the light of the factual matrix and binding legal precedents, the application in A.No.2919 of 2009 for vacating the interim order is allowed. Consequently, O.A.No.420 of 2009 seeking for a prior restraint is dismissed with costs. The costs quantified is Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the first respondent.
First, it was Mr. Justice Regupathy’s outburst of being pressurized by a union minister to go soft on a bail case; then the Leader of Opposition Ms. Jayalalitha naming the minister and calling for action against him; ‘Traffic’ Ramaswamy’s PIL for enquiry into the matter by CBI; and the subsequent explanatory letter by the judge to the Chief Justice settled the dust.
Now a group of anonymous advocates have circulated vicious pamphlets against Mr. Justice K Chandru, who had imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on Union Minister Raja in a defamation case against Tamil bi-weekly “Junior Vikatan”. When the matter came up for extension of injunction on July 20, Mr. Justice Chandru, refused to gag the press and said there was no law available to pass prior restraint order against the Press, and he not only rejected the Minister’s application but also imposed a case cost of Rs 10,000 payable to the magazine.
A large number of pamphlets printed in the name of “National Forum for Social Justice” was distributed in the High Court campus since July 22 morning, creating a flutter among advocates. The pamphlet said the judge had earlier argued for the media group when he was an advocate, and that he should not have taken up the case. The pamphlet, which was distributed to media persons, also said the judge was behaving as if he was the only champion of press freedom and democratic values, and that he should not have awarded the cost on the minister. Raja is emerging more powerful with every controversy. He had his say silently with the bail matter, the doctor and his son got anticipatory bail against a CBI case in a surprise move.
Holding that there was no law empowering the state or its officials to prohibit or to impose a prior restraint upon the press, the Madras High Court on Monday dismissed with cost the application filed by Union minister A. Raja, seeking a prior restraint order on a Tamil magazine from publishing any defamatory news about him. The judge said a careful perusal of the materials and the averments made in the affidavit do not indicate either any prima facie case or balance of convenience in the grant of a prior restraint order on the magazine. On the contrary, all the news items relate to the conduct of Raja in the public domain and does not relate to his or his wife’s private life.
Mr. Johann Hari wrote an article "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?" presenting his views on why he, in his full rights to freedom of speech and expression, doesn't want to respect what he calls oppressive religions. It's results can be anyone's wild guess which unfortunately prove the fast enforcing stereotypes as true, that there were riots, death threats, etc. to the author and the publisher. Contrary to the prevalent pusillanimous environment and Pseudo-Secularist Dhimmitude which has stricken the Bharatiya (misnomer: Indian) media in addition to the Anti-Hindu communal Politicians, one of the newspaper The Statesman dared to reprint Mr. Hari's article as it is. What happened next was that all hell broke loose with the usual rioting, national property destruction with fake calls of being oppressed. How a free will opinion of a person, his democratic right, in an article can be construed as oppression is beyond me!
If Anti-Hindu Bigot MF Hussain can draw filthy naked pictures of only Hindu Gods and Goddesses just to be felicitated for it by Government of Bharat (misnomer: India), then why can't a journalist express his opinion on a religion? What are these people trying to even control what others think?
An Indian newspaper called The Statesman – one of the oldest and most venerable dailies in the country – thought this accorded with the rich Indian tradition of secularism, and reprinted the article. That night, four thousand Islamic fundamentalists began to riot outside their offices, calling for me, the editor, and the publisher to be arrested – or worse. They brought Central Calcutta to a standstill. A typical supporter of the riots, Abdus Subhan, said he was "prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to protect the honour of the Prophet" and I should be sent "to hell if he chooses not to respect any religion or religious symbol? He has no liberty to vilify or blaspheme any religion or its icons on grounds of freedom of speech."
Then, two days ago, the editor and publisher were indeed arrested. They have been charged – in the world's largest democracy, with a constitution supposedly guaranteeing a right to free speech – with "deliberately acting with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings".
All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do. I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead. I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him.
I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it. I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice. This is not because of "prejudice" or "ignorance", but because there is no evidence for these claims. They belong to the childhood of our species, and will in time look as preposterous as believing in Zeus or Thor or Baal.
When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.
First of all, he took a dig at Jesus Christ also. Do we hear of such despicable violent show by Christians in this case? No. Next, seriously, all that Mr. Hari said was what your own scholars and your mythological text say. How can that hurt your religious sentiments?
Now I want to question Mr. Hari, who under pressure from death threats is toeing a different line and seems to be painting everyone with the same brush to save his ass.
I argued this was a symbol of how religious fundamentalists – of all stripes – have been progressively stripping away the right to freely discuss their faiths. They claim religious ideas are unique and cannot be discussed freely; instead, they must be "respected" – by which they mean unchallenged. So now, whenever anyone on the UN Human Rights Council tries to discuss the stoning of "adulterous" women, the hanging of gay people, or the marrying off of ten year old girls to grandfathers, they are silenced by the chair on the grounds these are "religious" issues, and it is "offensive" to talk about them.
This trend is not confined to the UN. It has spread deep into democratic countries. Whenever I have reported on immoral acts by religious fanatics – Catholic, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim – I am accused of "prejudice", and I am not alone. But my only "prejudice" is in favour of individuals being able to choose to live their lives, their way, without intimidation. That means choosing religion, or rejecting it, as they wish, after hearing an honest, open argument.
What should an honest defender of free speech say in this position? Every word I wrote was true. I believe the right to openly discuss religion, and follow the facts wherever they lead us, is one of the most precious on earth – especially in a democracy of a billion people riven with streaks of fanaticism from a minority of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. So I cannot and will not apologize.
I did not write a sectarian attack on any particular religion of the kind that could lead to a rerun of India's hellish anti-Muslim or anti-Sikh pogroms, but rather a principled critique of all religions who try to forcibly silence their critics. The right to free speech I am defending protects Muslims as much as everyone else. I passionately support their right to say anything they want – as long as I too have the right to respond.
Mr. Hari, I challenge you. I challenge you to prove one incident in History of Akhand Bharat (India since Vedic Times) when even once, Sanatan Dharm Anuyayi (Hindus) blocked/protested against any argument/debate on the Religious aspect of Dharm (righteous moral duties and codes) or any such reforms from happening. Only a naive ignorant person like you and communal bigots like Karunanidhi, Antulay, MF Hussain, Teesta Setalvad et al can think such way. Those who breed and propagate the myths of Aryan Invasion to divide people and deride Vedic culture and history. If it was true, how the f**k can you explain that not one, not two, not three, but at least four religions other than Hinduism (religious aspect of Sanatan Dharm) originated in Bharat and were allowed to propagate freely throughout Bharat.
Here we have a country, where so many religions were not only allowed to originate and survive but to assimilate, propagate and evolve freely without any oppressive Jizya tax or Vatican's political "Holier than thou" diktats. Can you imagine doing that in any other part of the world? Yeah, Good Luck with that!
Even in the US, there are some Christian extremists who can't seem to swallow the concept of Religious Tolerance, let alone Mutual Respect, only to interrupt the first Vedic (misnomer: Hindu) prayer in the Senate. All that the Hindu cleric Rajan Zed was praying for was peace for all and guidance from God (any religion's god who cares) to give us strength and knowledge so that we can go together from proverbial darkness to light. But what we got were shouts of blasphemy from ignorant Anti-Hindu bigoted Christian jerks who have nothing better to do in life but to enforce their beliefs on others in order to "save" them.
Who the f**k do you think you are or anyone else think he/she is to question the Secular (पंथनिरपेक्ष/Panthnirpeksh) credentials of Hindus? Panthnirpeksh means "No preference" to any Sect, it doesn't mean Religion and it doesn't mean that all religions are equal as per 1976 amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution of Bharat by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Has any other sect of people, like Hindus, been so religiously tolerant and mutually respectful to any other sect in the history of Humanity? No. We have survived over 20000 years with natural & man made calamities, atrocities and genocide by Muslims, Mongols, Alexander, Evangelic Christians missionary conversions, British et al and we are still over 800 Million Hindus in the world. It's been possible to be the longest surviving civilization in the world only because of the strong fundamentals and ground work of Sanatan Vedic Dharm done by our Rishi Munis (seers), our Gods avtar like Baman ji, Shri Ram, Shri Krishna and it's Sanatan Vedic Dharm Anuyayi's (misnomers: Hindus) big heart to still let at least 4 other religions to originate and also assimilate other fellow sect of most oppressed people in the world, the Jews, by letting them settle with peace and honor in Bharat. So don't tell us Hindus, if we are "Secular" or not. We don't need your certificate.
Back to your followup. Look at the drift in your tone from aggressive in the first article to passive appeasing in the next. And you also took down Hindus with you. You are saying if I understand you correctly that Oh you are not against Islam like Mr. Wilders is but you are only for Gay rights and against mythical Anti-Muslim pogrom by Hindus. Mr. Hari, I don't blame you for appeasing Muslim fanatics because everyone in this world with rational views on Islam or other "Holier than thou" religions per say are feeling alone very fast but you should not have taken down Hindus with you to cover your bases.
Your selective under-researched journalism is stark because you called violence/riots post Godhra train terrorist attack as Anti-Muslim pogrom. Here are the official figures from Government of India. According to an official estimate, 1044 people were killed in the violence - 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. Another 223 people were reported missing, 2,548 injured. These figures were reported to the Rajya Sabha (Upper House) by the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Prakash Jaiswal of Congress Party on May 11, 2005. Since most of these 254 Hindus died in police firing, your false accusation of Genocide or Pogrom stand incorrect, blatant lie, and part of false propaganda against Hindus. Get your facts straight and stop spreading lies as facts by calling it an Anti-Muslim pogrom.
Why is your heart not crying for those 59 innocent Hindus including 23 men, 15 women and 21 children who were burnt alive in a terrorist attack by a Muslim mob? That is what started it all in the first place.
Both the Godhra train attack and what happened after it in the riots were despicable acts of terror and should be condemned in harshest words. But BOTH should be condemned not just one part of it. So, please put a stop on your bias.
But Mr. Hari, don't worry no Hindu will give you death threat or ask for your head to be chopped off because we don't believe in such violence neither does our Shastr (Religious Scriptures) endorses/justifies/orders us to do so to those who hurt our sentiments during a debate/argument. Our Holy Scriptures teaches us to enlighten ourselves and others through open debates and not by violence & sword. Like a black sheep, as possible in any society or sect or religion, if there is someone who does resort to violence instead of any other possible/available Dharmic option and then tries to justify it in the name of religion or God, he/she is not a true Hindu, he/she is against Hindus, he/she is against Humanity and he/she is against Sanatan Dharm. He/She deserves punishment as per the respectable law of the land. But please remember that if literally attacked, Hindus do know how to f**k the sh*t out of an opponent to save the honour of the Matrbhoomi (Homeland) as clear from many wars in the past. I hope you stand corrected and choose not to spread lies to malign Hindus. I support your cause for freedom of speech to debate religions and I can understand that you are against those who are forcing others to go from Tainthood to Sainthood. But more than just prejudicially talk about Religious Tolerance of Hindus et al, learn to unbiasedly Mutually Respect them and their religion.
Why was the arrest and release on bail of The Statesman editor and publisher largely ignored by media? The governments may have electoral compulsions, but has the media totally given up the battle for free speech?
Early February, The Statesman in Kolkata reproduced an article titled "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?" by Johann Hari reproduced from London's The Independent. The article described how the hypersensitivity of religious fundamentalists was gradually curtailing free speech and rational discourse to make a mockery of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted 60 years ago.
Some Muslims in Kolkata objected to certain references to Islam in that article. They agitated outside the newspaper office for several days. The newspaper wrote that it had reproduced the article in good faith. It apologized for inadvertently hurting feelings. But the government smelling political advantage on the eve of a general election prosecuted the newspaper for spreading disaffection in violation of law. The editor and the publisher were arrested and later released on bail. Let's recall that only last year, Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen, who had made Kolkata her home, was forced to flee the state.
It is not one's intention here to justify the article. Possibly the criticism contained in it could have been worded differently -- but that is a separate debate. Here, one would like to question the government for its over reaction and prompt arrest of the editor and publisher. By no stretch of imagination was the newspaper article as offensive as, to cite a recent example, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi's remarks about Lord Ram made in the context of the Ram Setu agitation. Among other contemptuous allusions to Lord Ram that he made the CM described him as a drunkard. Predictably there were protests and rioting. One person was killed during the protest in Karnataka. Yet, no legal action was taken against the CM.
You may argue that at least in Thackeray's case, as in the Statesman case, some police and legal action was undertaken. You may argue that the police in the three states may have different yardsticks.
But the basic point is not only one of free speech but of the different yardsticks applied to political leaders and ordinary citizens. The Statesman offered regrets for the article even if arguably that was not warranted. Raj Thackeray remained defiant to the end.
Innumerable cases can be summoned of politicians brazenly violating laws and remaining unpunished. Innumerable cases can be summoned of ordinary citizens being harassed though innocent, or being punished for perceived minor technical offences. The system of justice in India is pure garbage. The tragedy is that even media remains a mute witness to the rape of justice.
It looks like it is not just Antonia Maino aka Sonia Gandhi who has a loathe for freedom of speech, there is also a section of media in such league, who on one hand protest their innards out at a mere mention of Government regulation on the press (so they should, I support them on it iff they follow some code of conduct and report the news as it is and not give sensational commentary), but on the other hand they themselves are trying to gag the free speech and opinion of the people. This time on the receiving end is a fellow blogger. Apparently, NDTV and its editor Ms. Barkha Dutt have forced a blogger Chyetanya Kunte to retract his views which he expressed in a post, aptly named so, "Shoddy journalism". He started his post by saying,
Appalling journalism. Absolute blasphemy! As I watch the news from home, I am dumbfounded to see Barkha Dutt of NDTV break every rule of ethical journalism in reporting the Mumbai mayhem. Take a couple of instances for example:
He then continued on to give specific example supporting his views.
Thanks to B Shantanu for bringing this to others notice in his post "Of “Hindu Hooligans” and “MIM Activists”". In this post, Shantanu has done a very informative and nice comparison between media's approach to the despicable attack by hooligans in Mangalore with the macabre assaults on Taslima Nasreen by radical Muslim extremists conveniently called as MIM activists by the biased media.
Chaitanya in his post "Shoddy journalism" had spoken his mind out on the ethics of journalism followed by NDTV and its editor Ms. Barkha Dutt during 11/26 Mumbai terrorist attacks. He questioned how news channels behaved during such emergency situation and how their irresponsible quest for oneupmanship may have caused loss of lives and may have hurt the rescue efforts of the security forces by unintentionally helping terrorists by showing the whole rescue operation live. Also, by giving out some sensitive information. But looks like NDTV doesn't have a taste for criticism and doesn't like to be held accountable for any mistakes done, if any.
Faiz Dadarkar give his views on "Bombay Terrorist attack - Media responsibility" below:
The media behaved as if the country was so terrified it came to a standstill. As if Madhya Pradesh did not go to polls, as if Delhi did not vote, as if a former Prime Minister, V P Singh, did not pass away ANJALI DESHPANDE and S.K. PANDE of the Delhi Union of Journalists detail their observations.
Was it necessary to provide 24-hour coverage of the hostage crisis? Did it do anything for the viewers, the security forces, the helpless hostages, Mumbai city or the nation…?
THE electronic media and the Mumbai elite ~ represented inexplicably by an overwhelming and, not at all paradoxically, eminently underwhelming contingent from Bollywood ~ have not covered themselves with glory after the terrorist strike on Mumbai. On offer from the media were crass sentimentality, over-the-top jingoism and an elite bias that was shocking. From the elite there was a mix of elitist foibles ~ an inexcusably self-centred response to a national crisis; a deeply anti-democratic, oligarchic view of how the country should be run; hypersensitivity about rights married to insensitivity to duties; and a deplorable lack of understanding or even engagement with public affairs.
The worst offender was NDTV 24x7’s We the People, anchored by Ms Barkha Dutt, though CNN-IBN was not very far behind. The crux of the gripe against the news channel is an elitist bias that could be spotted with eyes wide shut. On every talk show and news capsule the people paraded were from the well-heeled set ~ with a large dose of Bollywood and the entertainment industry ~ with a token policeman and politician thrown in. The latter, it must be said, made more sense than the rest of the crew put together. There were, to be sure, token references to the attack on the railway terminus and the deaths there ~ but they were not really in the frame. What was on offer in We the People was stomach-churningly nauseating tokenism ~ with a man who had lost most of his family brought into the studio, his privacy shredded to bits and a spectacle mounted, replete with histrionics from the anchor that would make anyone cringe. Such treatment, needless to say, was not meted out to the smart set from the five-star hotels. The patronising tone was unreal.
In a heartening development catalysed by the Rameshwaram Rama Sethu Protection Movement, a group of scientists gathered in London in November 2008 to declare the imperative of saving and protecting Sethusamudram as the world’s sacred ecological treasure.
Location map of Rama SethuLocation map of Rama Sethu: bathymetry map of Sethusamudram (reproduced from Murty et al., 1994)
The Gulf of Mannar and Palk Straits of the Indian Ocean separated by the causeway Rama Setu called Setusamudram. Setusamudram is a compound term: Sethu + Samudram (Causeway + Ocean). Unlike the Great Barrier Reef of Australia, the Sethu has for millennia served as a causeway linking India and Sri Lanka. This sacred monument is venerated in the cultures of millions of people of many nations along the Indian Ocean Rim – nations that can be called the Indian Ocean Community, analogous to the recently constituted European Community. The Sethusamudram is so sacred that every year hundreds of thousands pilgrims assemble in the oceanfront near Rameshwaram (a jyotirlinga pilgrimage place) to perform samudrasnanam (sacred bath in the ocean) at a place where the Indian Ocean remains placid like a lake. This samudrasnanam is a celebration of and homage to the ancestors of many civilizations, Hindu civilization, in particular. This homage is called pitr-tarpanam reinforcing the identity of a billion people on the globe who revere the story of Rama and the history of Sethubandha (the bund to cross the ocean built by the architect Nala, under the direction of the Avatarapurusha, Sri Rama and by vanara army led by Sri Hanuman. Both Sri Rama and Sri Hanuman are worshipped in many temples across the globe. [vanara is erroneously translated as ‘monkeys’; va-nara literally means people-like speakers, evoking the evolution of man on earth.] The causeway is a physical structure superimposed over a ridge formed by collapsed canyons in geological past in an ocean zone exemplified by Mannar volcanic rocks, heat-flows of geothermal energy potential and plate tectonics (earthquakes caused by plate-movements).
HeatflowS in Rama Sethu 100 to 180 milliwatt per sq. m. comparable to Himalayan hotsprings. Will dredging in the area activate these heat zones?
Corals of Sethusamudram
Sethusamudram is home to corals. The coral conglomerates [* File contains invalid data | In-line.JPG *], which are referred to as floating stones in many versions of the story of Sri Rama, were used to construct the causeway, Sethu (which is explained in Tamil encyclopaedia Abhidana Chintamani as ‘ceyarkarai’ that is, artificial, man-made bund). Sethubandha is celebrated in ancient texts, in the song, dance and sculptural traditions of the Indian Ocean Rim states.
Sethubandha construction shown on a 9th century sculptural panel in Parambanan (Brahmavana) temple in Indonesia.
The devastation warned, affecting over 60 million people should make every public official and scientist pause and consider the sacred ecology that Sethusamudram constitutes. Over the millennia, people have venerated the Indian Ocean as a life-source. Many young, married couples go for the samudrasnanam praying for the birth of children in their families. Millions of marine folk along the long 7,500 km coastline of India live off the marine wealth of the coastline including the wealth of corals. Corals have a particular sacred significance in Hindu civilizational traditions. The shankha or turbinella pyrum is also called the sacred conch. This sacred conch, shankha, adorns the hands of Vishnu and Bhairava, two divinities worshipped in thousands of temples all over the world. The shankha is also venerated as the conch-trumpet called Panchajanya used by Avatara purusha Sri Krishna to call the troops to battle in the Kurukshetra war described in the epic Mahabharata.Sri Rama is also shown blowing the shankha trumpet in an exquisite terracotta sculpture of the 3rd century in a village near Ayodhya.
Terracotta panel of Bhitargaon showing Vishnu blowing the conch, an event depicting Rama as Vishnu Avatara, defeats the Rakshasas led by Malyavan, Mali and Sumali and as narrated in the Uttarkandaof the Ramayana (Cantoes VI-VIII). http://ignca.nic.in/pb0020.htm
Quake-induced uplift of coral families in Sumatra Mentawai islands.Sethusamudram is an Indian Ocean region famous for the coral turbinella pyrum, shankha. At Kizhakkarai, 15 kms from Rameshwaram, West Bengal Development Corporation has an office for acquiring the shankha; the annual turnover is over Rs. 50 million ($1 million). The shankha is used to make bangles. Without shankha bangles, no Bengali or Oriya marriage is complete. So sacred are the shankha bangles.Studies of the type carried out in Mentawai Islands near Sumatra have to be carried out in Sethusamudram to record the upliftment, if any, of the coral reefs, in the region which is earth-quake prone, apart from being the only coastal region with evidence of Mannar volcanic rocks and heat-flows comparable to the heat-flows recorded in the sub-Himalayan hot-springs.
Sethu as tsunami-protection wall
The Sethu has served as a natural tsunami-protection wall in an ocean zone subject to many earthquakes and consequent tsunamis. The nearby region of Sumatra is also home to the world’s most devastating volcano, the Mount Toba that had a super-eruption about 74,000 years ago spewing volcanic ash to a depth of 6 to 12 inches all over South India south of the Vindhya Mountains.
The Bay of Bengal part of the Indian Ocean is a trough subject to recurring, severe cyclonic storms from the area of depression near Taiwan. The storm surges get sucked into the trough of Bangladesh causing enormous damage to lives and properties. The tsunami which occurred on December 26, 2004 was an event triggered by the subduction of the Indian plate under the Burmese plate resulting in the displacement of water which surreptitiously traveled as tsunami resulting in the loss of over 200,000 lives and the virtual disappearance of Aceh island. A tsunami expert, Prof. Tad S. Murthy notes that if any channel is laid across Sethusamudram, the channel will act like a funnel absorbing the energies of the next tsunami and devastate the coastline of South India because of what is known as the ‘quarter-wave resonance amplification’. This is proved by the Alaska tsunami of 1964 which resulted in maximum devastation along the Alberni Canal in Canada and the destruction of the Alberni Port.
The sentiments expressed in the London seminar echoe the judgment of the Supreme Court of India which asked the Union of India to reconsider the Sethusamudram Channel project and noted that a Pachauri Committee will go study the issue. Prof. Rajendra Pachauri heads the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an institution that received the Nobel Prize for Peace. Pachauri Committee should not only recommend the scrapping of the Sethusamudram Channel project, which will be a world calamity if carried through, but also recommend a serious, multi-disciplinary agency to study the impact of another tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Another tsunami in the Indian Ocean is not a theoretical model but a reality. Scientific advances have not been able to predict the exact date of the next tsunami but all scientists are agreed that another tsunami more devastating than the December 26, 2004 tsunami is a possibility.
This nightmare warning, this possibility has been studied by seismologists (researchers of earthquakes) and earth scientists studying corals. In a recent study published in the Science Magazine (December 16, 2008) scientists have observed that many coral colonies in the Mentawai Islands near Sumatra were killed in September 2007 when large earthquakes lifted the reefs 1 meter or more out of the water. Seismology studies show that an earthquake of magnitude greater than 8.8 on Richter scale, could rock the coastal areas of Bengkulu and Padang in the next 30 years (along the Sumatra earthquake belt), triggering a major tsunami which could put over 60 million people of the Indian Ocean, east coast of India, west coast of Burma and south coast of Bangladesh at risk.
Pachauri Committee will also be well advised to review the creation of Marine Economic Zones all along the long 7500 km. coastline of India to create new economic opportunities for the coastal and marine people.
Tsunami-protection wall in Japan
A multi-disciplinary team of experts should be constituted IMMEDIATELY, by the Union of India to study the warnings of another tsunami which will devastate the nation’s coastline and lives and property of coastal people and establish Disaster Management Zones all along the vulnerable coastline with structures like tsunami-protection walls constructed in Japan.
Next tsunami
Sacred traditions help us remember the sacredness of the earth in which we are only trustees of the present and future generations.
We do NOT have the right to destroy this sacred ecology and deny future generations, the privilege of worshipping sacred sites and remembering the ancestors who have given the humanity its very identity.
Indian Ocean Rim states impacted by the tsunami of December 26, 2004
The next tsunami is likely to impact the same Indian Ocean region – a lesson learnt from history.List and locations of catastrophic tsunamis of Indian Ocean.catastrophic tsunamis of Indian Ocean
What the scientists tell us about earthquakes and tsunamis should make us pause and ponder.The 9.0 Earthquake of December 26, 2004 at 6.58 hours at the epicenter (and in Sri Lanka) led to a sequence of 15 quakes across the Andaman region. While earthquakes could not be predicted in advance, once the earthquake was detected it was possible to give about 3 hours of notice of a potential Tsunami. Such a system of warnings is in place across the Pacific Ocean but is only being put in place in the Indian Ocean; this needs further cooperation among the nations of the Indian Ocean Community.
Nature magazine reports: “Tens of millions of people along the heavily populated coasts of Myanmar, Bangladesh and West Bengal could be living under threat of a tsunami as massive as the one that devastated the Sumatran coast in 2004, according to a report to be released by Nature on Thursday this week. The report claims that while the 2004 disaster took the scientific community by surprise many of the same warning signs currently exist in the Bay of Bengal.”
When the plate boundaries abruptly deform and vertically displace the overlying water, a tsunami occurs. A tsunami travels very fast as ocean waves, about 800 km/h, or 0.2 km/sec for a water depth of 5000 m. Seismic waves are faster and cause enormous upheavals on the earth’s crust and ocean-beds. Oceans are the treasure of humanity and it is our responsibility to harness the treasure in a sustainable manner through well-regulated Marine Economic Zones which have the potential to make the Indian Ocean Community a veritable powerhouse to create wealth of nations, while providing new livelihoos opportunities to over 2 billion people on the globe.
Tsunami impact on land cover of Indian Ocean Community
Disclaimer: This is a free voluntary advertisement of an exceptional book that I believe every Indian must read. I have no monetary gains from this promotion.
“Islamophobia” is Spreading in America
-
Of course I mean that in a good way. It is a pattern of non-Muslim
politicians who have finally recognized stealth jihad. Which is the method
of how Musl...
Academia's Iran Lobby
-
In 2021, after the Biden Department of Justice indicted Boston University
professor Kaveh Afrasiabi for acting as an unregistered agent of the
Iranian go...
The High Cost of Trump’s Crony Diplomacy
-
Effective diplomacy depends on credibility, consistency, and a clear
alignment with national interests. The US administration’s personalized,
opaque, and v...
Panduan Praktis Main Game Online
-
Hai, para gamer pemula! Bermain game online itu seru dan cara mudah untuk
bersosialisasi. Ini adalah panduan khusus untuk pemula, membantu Anda
memulai d...
Excerpts “The Sati Strategy” – Koenraad Elst
-
Related Posts: A rebuttal to Abul Kasem – “Women in Hinduism” by R Maliger
and “Women in Hinduism” – Part II
The post Excerpts “The Sati Strategy” – Koen...
In memory of Dr N Gopalakrishnan
-
The late Dr. N Gopalakrishnan was a dedicated individual who devoted his
life to serving the noble causes of Sanatana Dharma despite the challenging
circ...
How Convenient! Part 2: Zayd, Saowda & Rayhana
-
Muhammad's quest to marry Zaynab involved multiple prophecies and touched
many lives. Here we learn about his special relationship with Zayd, his
not-so-...
Abonnement IPTV
-
Notre IPTV bietet eine Reihe von Paketen, um sicherzustellen, dass Sie die
Inhalte erhalten, die Ihrem Budget entsprechen. Im Gegensatz zu anderen
Anbiet...
తెలుగు దళిత యోగులు : Telugu Dalit Yogis
-
*దళిత యోగులు*
* శ్రీ హరళయ్య స్వామి.(ఆదోని,కర్నూల్ జిల్లా) మాదిగ కులం లో కర్నాటక లో
పుట్టాడు.63 మందితో ఒక భక్త బృందం ఏర్పడి వూరూరా తిరిగి ప్రచారం చేసేవారు....
** Islamists use Secularism
-
How Islamists Use Secularism against Democracy Ishaan Mohan Bagga
IndianExponent Criticizing Islam is not politically correct – The term is
‘Islamophobia’....
Get India going, don’t worry about Hindi
-
We really don’t need tax-funded babus to promote Hindi or protect India’s
official language from Macaulay Putras. What we need is to focus on getting
Indi...
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
-
Sharing some snippets (mostly media coverage) from my campaign trail: Poll
results pre-decided due to 10 years of bad governance, says Advani Press
Trust o...
We are Back on Jan 1st.2013
-
Pranaam Mitroon. We are back friends among you all after a Looooong Hiatus.
Much water has flown down rivers of Bharat Varsh since this blog was last
updat...
Media snubbed, by the boys in blue.
-
I get a sinister pleasure when i hear that some one thumbed their noses at
the media and the media did not have any answers. Well that what the boys
in blu...
How the UPA devalues democracy
-
How the UPA devalues democracy M R Venkatesh, February 13, 2009 In a
remarkable string of coincidences over the past fortnight or so, the United
Progressiv...
Posts
