That Elusive Freedom of Expression

That Elusive Freedom of Expression.

I am sure that everyone by now would have read the news about the Publishing house Penguin withdrawing a book because they wanted to avoid the hassles of legal complications. And if you open the morning papers you can read the news about groups of self appointed culture guardians shaming couples who were indulging in a little PDA on Valentine’s Day. If you switch on the TV you can see the regularly roaring TV anchors mewling like pet cats when it comes to political interviews of future prime ministers. Even on the sports channels you can see that fearless batsmen of yesteryear's are now turned gentle spin-specialists when it comes to speaking the truth about the powers that be which run the sport – even after they have been caught red handed flouting all the rules. Everywhere you look there seems to be a general dumbing-down of criticism and comments. Self censorship has become ubiquitous. And free speech has been sacrificed at the altar of safety and political correctness.

The situation is such that not only free speech people are even afraid of free thinking and prefer to go along with the crowd. And for every such act of conformity the blame is laid on the archaic laws of the Indian Penal Code and the Defamation clause 294-A. If the courts don’t support us when we speak our minds then why should we risk our necks by speaking the truth seems to be the general excuse of people who should know better. So is it true that all the blame for this assault on free thought and speech in modern India lies on our laws? Is there no more a culture of encouraging free speech in our country?  

Any story about the freedom of speech has to start with the British rule in India. The British who ruled India for around two centuries were the first to systematically suppress free speech among the native populace. They did it because they were afraid that a free press would undermine their rule over the natives by pointing out its illegitimacy and oppressiveness. Media spin was its highest when in the accounts of the Sepoy mutiny the news about the starvation of Englishmen and women were widely reported while the systematic decimation and depopulation of entire native Indian populations in savage reprisals were never mentioned at all in the popular press (British owned and published) of the time. Any attempt by the Indians to tell their side of the story was ruthlessly suppressed with laws and laws and many more laws which made free speech a luxury unaffordable. What the British could not achieve by violence they often achieved by enacting laws and saying they were just following the rule of law and anyone who broke such laws was an anarchist and instigator of violence. Seems familiar?

It was indeed ironic that when such savage attacks on the vernacular press was going on in India; at the same time the British press at home was a vociferous supporter of free speech and often took liberties which would have fetched immediate transport to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman Islands if tried out in India by Indians. The Englishman then as now was always the epitome of hypocrisy, preaching what he never practiced which does raise the question of how the Americans can be so different, honest and forthright, when they came from the same stock basically. But that’s digressing from our topic, so back to freedom of speech.

When the British finally left us and we got our independence from them, the founding fathers of our republic, stalwart leaders who had seen first-hand the need for a strong law to protect our freedom of speech included the right to free speech in the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, of course with certain exceptions for the rarest of rare cases. But politics being what it is, very soon the politicians who ruled us realized that free speech was antagonistic to their continued well-being and used those rare exceptions commonly to assault our freedom till every single free newspaper and independent media started towing the establishments’ line. But things didn’t stop with that.

As our republic matured we began to see more and more attacks on our freedom with the difference that instead of free speech there were now gags on even free thought. Any citizen who expressed what was on his mind was expected to face the music which had the natural effect of damping free thought among the general populace. The few people brave enough or stupid enough to go against such restrictive rules were hounded in courts with multiple cases filed against them for hurting the sentiments of this or that group. If you write about the Prophet the Muslims are offended. If you write about the Hindu gods then the Hindus are offended. You call a poet or a film maker as not worthy of praise then his or her state mates are offended. Hell, you don’t need to talk about anyone else but just celebrate Valentine’s Day, everyone around you is offended. And they just have to file a complaint at the local police station, to have the police arrest you immediately, have the media sensationalize your arrest and finally make you spend years and years living in the courts fighting the cases filed against you.

This getting offended and feigning thin skin kind of legal approaches which are now routinely being supported by the courts has had the unfortunate effect of playing right into the hands of the extremists and narrow parochial interests (with venal politicians behind them at every instance) who exploit laws made for genuine reasons to achieve their base interests. The situation has deteriorated even more with the explosion of social media- after the Facebook status arrests and Twitter trolls attacks people are even afraid to express their minds on-line for fear of being arrested at midnight by the police force which has nothing else to do in a land where murderers and rapists walk around in broad daylight with impunity.

All of this begs the question - are we really a free nation now? When the people have no choice to speak or even think for themselves do we really deserve the right to call ourselves free? If every two-bit political group can claim hurt interests can the courts continue to support them and punish free citizens? Is the freedom to think for ourselves disappearing completely from our society? Is being politically correct all the time the only way to save our skins? I don’t know the answers to any of these questions. But I am both angry and scared that I live in a country where my thoughts have to be automatically censored to avoid being bodily harmed by ruffians and rowdies who don’t think the same way as I do.

And to have all this supported by the courts (and the authority of the law) which instead of guaranteeing free speech for every citizen is automatically taking the side of the lumpen elements is more and more scary. I have heard of the term banana republic (places where people can be hung by mobs for uttering the wrong word) before and I am afraid I am seeing one being formed right before my eyes. I grieve for my nation, for its lost ideals and disappearing freedoms. And I am angry at the judges, courts and laws for supporting this assault on free speech and free thought. When will the law stand up for the rights of the common man? Whither my country?

Gagging Doctors on Social media.

Gagging Doctors on Social media.

I read somewhere recently that the British government - the British medical association has issued strict rules for doctors on social media- it says something like doctors should not post any opinions or advices on social media as it reflects on the profession adversely. Although I live in India and the Indian government hasn’t had any say on this subject, it’s only a matter of time before they do too- most probably by copying the British government law verbatim- like we did with all of our other laws...Remember the Indian Penal Code, anyone?

Firstly, I welcome the move to curtail "online medical advice" for too many people write way too many medical advice columns using the  easy availability and wide reach of social media and so much so that anyone who gets to read a couple of pubmed articles via google immediately starts doling out medical advice to others. Where I disagree with the British medical association's new rules is on forbidding the use of the word "opinions". Now personally speaking, I am an opinionated man and I dole out my frank and outspoken (even contrary) opinion on all subjects under the sun- from relationship issues to current affairs to politics and I almost never confine my opinions to just my chosen profession. But gagging me only because I am a doctor seems to be a bit unfair to me when all other professions are allowed to vent their ideas and feelings online.

Every day as part of life I meet a lot of people (like the bus conductor of my regular bus, the waiter who serves me regularly at the hotel etc) -some of whom on learning that I am a doctor immediately cage for free medical advice or a second opinion on someone else's previous advice. As any responsible doctor would do- I listen to them, offer my opinion and always, always tell them to consult a good doctor straightaway for a real and valuable consultation. I remind them that I am not their doctor and as such I can only advise them generally based on the limited knowledge I have of them. I don’t consider doling out such free advice as a threat to the medical profession - especially as its only general opinions and nothing specific or in detail. Even when it comes to social media I follow the same set of rules whenever I reply to the half a dozen or so such messages I receive on facebook and twitter daily from friends and strangers. And I make it a point to almost never treat my social media friends as patients in real life because most such online friendships would not stand the test of seeing my real life consultation bill. 

Social media is a medium not supposed to be taken seriously in my view. It is a kind of hobby, a stress-buster to me. So why would I do online again all the same things I do in the real world from morning to night? I use social media to connect socially with people and to offer my views on life and life experiences, not to make money by doling out paid consultations. In fact one of the things I love about facebook or twitter is that I get to meet people with widely different (and unique) life experiences whom I would never get to meet in my real life circles- which revolves mainly around other doctors and hospitals. I am interested in everyone I meet (well except for the trolls)- because each of us has lived a unique life, had unique life experiences and have extraordinary stories to share with the world - social media helps me to hear those stores and apply it to my own life. Now why would the government object to that? Beats me.

And on the other side of the equation, like a software engineer, or like a teacher or an auditor or anyone else doctor’s too should be allowed to talk about their life including work life and its experiences on social media- just like you would tell your relatives and friends about the exciting day you had at work in any other profession. That doesn’t mean that the doctor is giving out secret professional information on patients which can be used against them. When I first started blogging there were too many trolls (mostly frustrated/incompetent doctors who were envious of my capacity to tell a medical story interestingly) who tried to abuse me and railed against me for violating doctor patient information - as if my blog had a million readers and I was sharing nuclear technology secrets on it. I routinely deleted all the spam mails from such envious people and have continued to write what I want to on my blog and letting my sense of professionalism and conscience to be my guide.

If you have been regular readers of this blog you would know that sharing my thoughts on social media involves mainly sharing with you about all the heartaches, emotions, confusions and frustrations of medicine. When I write about the struggle of a doctor to understand and diagnose a rare disease I am not stating that I am superior to other doctors- I just offer you a privileged inner view into the thought processes which go behind making a diagnosis- it’s like watching a match live on TV - everything is real- real patients and their real pain. I don’t think I am being unprofessional or betraying any secrets when I share with you the raw stories of how medicine works especially with all the emotions and feelings involved in each decision. And I am sure like people everywhere you too are interested in other people’s stories or my blog won’t be nearing a hundred thousand page views by now.

So I believe this effort to gag doctors from social media is a dangerous trend and should not succeed- not in Britain and definitely not in India- for I believe that like everyone else a doctor too should be allowed the freedom to express his opinions freely on social media. The story is what matters in the end, not the medium. So is it ok for me to tell your stories on my blog, friends? I await your frank responses. Do tell.

O’Freedom of Expression- Where Art Thou?

O’Freedom of Expression- Where Art Thou?

The founding fathers of the Indian republic took care to include in the Indian constitution Art 19 guaranteeing freedom of expression (with certain caveats under exceptional circumstances).

India was the first country to ban Salman Rushdie's novel Satanic Verses. Even before the Mullahdom of Iran and the Monarchy of Saudi Arabia. The Sultanates and Emirates merely followed the august example of democratic India.

India and specifically the state with a communist government of West Bengal refused to guarantee the safety of the writer Taslima Nasreen and asked her to move away to another state or country if she wished to stay alive, because she offended someone with her novel Lajja.

The Henderson Report of the reasons for the defeat/debacle war of 1965 against China has been read and reported in most international countries, including the victor nation of the war china, while it is still banned in India (from the Indian citizens) citing official secrets act.

Any book/film/material dealing with the Nehru/Mountbatten family gossip and any  material/book/film dealing with the emergency era excesses still get routinely banned in India courtesy a single family's hold on a political party.

The Tehelka group which pioneered sting operations were hounded out of operation within days of their exposes by continuous income tax raids and investigations- a move which had bi-partisan political support from the ruling and opposition parties.

The film Bombay which dealt with the Bombay riots, the film Sarkar which touched upon Shiv Sena Politics and the the film Guru which was loosely based on an industrialists life were all pre-censored by the persons involved- by Bal Thackeray, Shiv Sena and the Ambanis. Directors Mani Ratnam and Ram Gopal Verma did not have any qualms about removing scenes which were deemed objectionable by the super-censors.

Michael Jackson on his official India tour was made to first visit Matoshree, the residence of the Thackerays before being allowed to perform in Bombay.

Deepa Mehtas movie “fire” was not allowed to be filmed in India by self-appointed moral guardians -because “lesbianism” is against Indian culture. And this is the same country where gang-rapes are so common, that unless they happen in the national capital they are routinely ignored by the media.

When the actor Rajnikant choose to opt out of a Cauvery River Water demonstration, he was forced by “public” opinion to do a special “individual” sit-in protest against Karnataka for not sharing Cauvery water with Tamilnadu.

Sociologist Ashish Nandy has been charge-sheeted with multiple cases of spreading communal hatred because he choose to speak a few words on the comparative corruption of different castes in the Jaipur Litfest where an intellectual discussion on corruption was being conducted.

And people complain, protest that Kamal Hassan’s movie Viswaroopam's banning is wrong and against freedom of expression.

Really? And when did you realize this? Last night?

For 60 years the phrase freedom of expression has been torn and trampled underfoot by successive governments at the central and state levels and intolerant tyrants and their captive mobs have been allowed to dictate terms to the ordinary citizens. Our country has been turned into intolerant India, all the while mouthing platitudes like Mera Bharat Mahan.

A few thousand twitter account holders and bloggers (including yours truly) bleating online or television anchors screaming at high pitch is not going to make much of a difference at the ground level because politicians will ignore these “elite” voices with impunity as they do not form their captive vote banks and are not even powerful enough to dent their vote banks a little.

The voiceless, faceless masses of India who toil for a living face a daily test of their freedoms and rights every time they go to any government office for any official work. In point of fact, perfect expression of freedom is shown by the official clerks at government offices who barely look up to acknowledge your existence unless you show some Christmas spirit and practice the “joy of giving”. And it is when these masses, the “common man/woman” realize the extent to which their constitution-given rights have been curtailed by their indifference to the world around them will a change come to the country- a change from the grassroots. I hope it happens soon. Will it?

[Disclaimer- The facts quoted above are from media sources in the public domain and as such the writer does not vouch for the authenticity of the primary sources. The writer is a poor, working class individual and cannot afford to embroil himself in multiple libel cases under the efficient Indian judicial system. As such, an unconditional blanket apology is issued by the writer if anyone feels inclined to pursue any libel case against this blogpost.]