Editor,
Our tradition of neighbours one another has always been one of our strengths and the most noble tradition: a tradition known as ‘Sngikylliang ka Nongkylliang’ or ‘Chunong Chusngi’ among the Jaintias. This is a kind of neighbourhood social bonding. Historically, a neighbourhood appears wherever human beings live together, live next to each other- that allows an opportunity to form friendships based on components of proximity and reciprocity. Rural neighbourhoods usually maintain certain practices to serve the interests of the community. One example of a long-held tradition in the rural neighbourhood- a practice still prevalent in an ‘intimate community’ is when a neighbour is in need, neighbours help him in ploughing his field, building his hut and guarding his sheep. Without expecting any payment in return, the neighbours reciprocate the same.
All this has changed dramatically over the centuries since the Industrial Revolution. In urban contexts, neighbourhood friendships have relatively moderate cohesiveness. Moreover, members of the community have the tendency to choose friends on the basis of similarity in backgrounds, such as socio-economic background, status, values and interests. Today we have neighbours that know each other only casually as acquaintances and the only exchange between them is, “How Are You?” There’s nothing beyond this perfunctory greeting. This has corroded our sense of community for which we are called tribals.
Yours etc.,
Dr Omarlin Kyndiah,
Via email
Kudos to Sanbor Shullai of BJP
Editor,
In the tumultuous times of the last week of December 2022 when churches were attacked in some parts of the country, BJP MLA, Sanbor Shullai condemned the atrocities on Christians. He needs to be thanked for what he did despite being a member of the BJP which has an antipathy towards minorities. It needs courage and conscientiousness to speak the truth. We also cannot forget the fact that Sanbor Shullai drew the wrath of the Centre for defending the Mizoram government in the border imbroglio with Assam. Knowing that Shullai is one of the few winning candidates, the Centre is not in a position to take action against Shullai.
Yours etc
W. Passah.
Via email
Unfettered speech: boon or bane?
Editor,
When the USSR disintegrated, people were extremely happy for they believed that now there would be no restriction on their speech but after sometime they realised that it was only a mirage. They realised that even if they have freedom of speech no one listens to their problems. They also realised within a short time that no one is prepared to take their speech seriously and unless a person’s or group’s speech is taken seriously and leads to action, freedom of speech is worthless. Now we look at the decision of the Supreme Court on this subject matter. On the one hand is the Supreme Court decision on free speech whereas on the other hand the Gujarat Bill empowering the police to book protesters just got the President’s assent. And now violation of section 144 will be a cognisable offence under section 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the IPC and can invite 6 months of jail term. Are not the decisions at cross purposes? On the Azam Khan case the apex court said there was no scope for imposing additional restrictions on elected members of the legislature and parliament as it is in the greater interest of other citizens and their rights. Thus, the restrictions to free speech while expressing views on sensitive matters apply to the MPs, MLAs and other public officials equally with all other citizens for, no law condones such acts. The use of social media to express free speech in a country as diverse as ours, often gives rise to increasing instances of violation of right to freedom of expression. This in turn triggers the dilemma of what constitutes freedom of speech and what is a derogatory and vitriolic remark or work of art. Consequently, the blurred lines between the two leads to misuse of the provisions of the law, biased behaviour and shielding of errant people who wield power. Disagreeing with the majority’s opinion, Justice BV Nagarathna said if a minister makes disparaging statements in his official capacity, it can be vicariously attributed to the government. Pertinently, she emphasised that hate speech must not be allowed on the pretext of freedom of speech as it ‘denies human beings the right to dignity’ by striking at the foundational values by ‘making the society unequal and also attacks citizens from diverse backgrounds’.
Indeed, every person should measure their words before uttering them. Justice Nagarathna is vehemently against hate speech. She remarked that it violates the fraternity of citizens from diverse backgrounds. And said the sine qua non of a cohesive society is based on plurality and multiculturalism such as India that is ‘Bharat. She also pointed out that fraternity is based on the idea that citizens have reciprocal responsibilities towards one another. While Justiuce Nagarathna’s intentions are laudable, her attack on hate speech seems a bit excessive. The reason is that in the last one hundred years, a lot of creative and scholarly works have been banned or curtailed on grounds of blasphemy, immorality, etc. Some of them can be brought under the rubric of ‘hate speech.’ Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824-83), founder of Arya Samaj, was a bitter critic of superstitions and endless rituals that have been the bane of Hindu society for centuries. Prime Minister Narendra Modi extolled him for this reason.
In his magnum opus, Satyartha Prakash, Dayananda wrote that “idolatry is adharma.” Isn’t it blasphemous from the perspective of millions of Hindu devotees? Should Satyartha Prakash be regarded as hate speech? Hundreds of years ago, Kabir wrote, “Laying rock upon stone a mosque is made/On this climbs the muezzin to make his call to the heavens/ Is the Lord deaf then?” By any reckoning, this is deeply offensive to Islam. He also ridiculed idolatry, which Hindus would regard as offensive. Emphasis should be on checking violence by demagogues, not on further curbing free speech, which is already under attack from various quarters. As the issue had wide ranging impact so it should be exercised cautiously so that it may not widen the gap between different societies.
Yours etc.,
Yash Pal Ralhan,
Via email