Dear Shri Sangom, Greetings!
....Unlimited freedom for speech and action is not allowed even by the most liberal countries, I think.
I addressed this in my
post #12 as follows:
" Outside of speech that directly incites violence or directly causes panic and pandemonium -- like shouting fire in a crowded theater -- there is nothing called abusing the freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech is indeed not an unlimited freedom. To draw a line between allowed speech and prohibited speech, I do pity the nation that wants to point to countries like Pakistan and China to justify their actions.
Just as the survival instinct is the most powerful in living beings, the instinct for survival as a nation is supreme in any constitution. If some one who is a member of that constitution, who is supposed to be mentally fit, talks things which may prove harmful to the very interests of the country, then the freedom for such speech should not be allowed.
Each nation gets to decide where to draw this line. I do pity the nation that has sedition laws in their books and are willing to use or even threaten to use these laws like only a despot would do.
As I said above, mentally unsound persons can say anything, including abuses but most probably others will avoid such persons. Now GOI has decided, it seems, to ignore AR and her speech. Apart from Kashmir, she also said, it is seen, "bhookhe nange hindustaani" to refer to Indians, which is outright insult of all Indians. Do we not have the right to call upon her to answer for this?
I don't know Hindi, I don't know what this means. Anyway, let me emphasize, I am not here to defend every last word that comes out her mouth or pen, even though she does to speak to my values most of the times. But, I strongly believe a nation that wants to be known as a democracy (the biggest!) must be prepared stomach some insults. For instance, flag burning is considered very insulting to a nation, and it is protected speech in the U.S.
For her pointed criticisms she does get challenged. In the last few days she has been roundly criticized by one and all -- ad hominum a plenty. All this is well and good, even though ad hominems point to intellectual bankruptcy, but that is not illegal. Arundhati must endure all these verbal attacks. If she can't stand the heat, she needs to stay away from such debates.
But, the government has no business muzzling her political speech. The legal system must not allow frivolous law suites to be brought against her by anybody, like that BJP politician from Ranchi. The enormous power of the state must be used to protect speech, not to curtail it. Antidote to bad speech is not less speech, but more.
Cheers!