Many people, who were disgusted at the @BloomsburyIndia move to publish the Delhi Riots book, are also equally disappointed at the publisher's withdrawal from publication. While I understand the free speech concerns, I feel it comes out of a superficial understanding of
... free speech & also a failure to see the power dynamics in the issue. Before elaborating on that, sharing a principle I firmly believe.
'Freedom doesn't mean freedom to monger hate based on distorted facts & one-sided narrative to push the oppressed to further margins'
It is not hard to imagine the contents of the book given the kind of people associated with it. The publication of it would have added insult to the injury of the minorities who are yet to receive any institutional justice or healing wrt riots.
Having followed the riots issues and the State responses to it quite regularly, I firmly believe that the book would've pushed a narrative of demonization of the minority, selling a fake feeling of majoritarian victimhood. The proponents of the book enjoy immense State patronage
and what they are going to sell is a narrative which suits the State and majoritarian sentiments. I'm saying these to show who enjoys the power position in the equation.
So it's not prudent to compare this to a situation where an oppressed/ marginalised group is voicing an opinion not aligned with majoritarian sentiments. Situation also not comparable to a case where someone is whistleblowing or bringing out facts inconvenient to establishment.
And there was no "ban" of the book.The publisher took a conscientious decision to withdraw after some social media outrage. Remember, there was no heckling, harassment, abusing, death/rape threats, FIRs, vandalisms etc. Some individuals expressed their outrage in a civil manner.
And I don't think @BloomsburyIndia felt threatened or harassed by these individual voices. This is not comparable to a situation like Padmavat or Perumal Murugan. The publisher made a review out of their "deep sense of responsibility".
Finally, on a personal & emotional level, for those section of people who feel repeatedly anguished at the outrageous levels of impunity enjoyed by hate mongers & riot perpetrators, these kind of small victories mean a lot, reaffirming faith in justice (in an informal manner)
OpIndia @OpIndia_com has published an article written by its Chief Editor Nupur Sharma @UnSubtleDesi targeting LiveLaw @LiveLawIndia. The article is malicious, factually wrong & a blatant misrepresentation of the court proceedings, which can amount to contempt of court. Thread
The summary of the mischievous article is that LiveLaw, in its ‘X’ handle, posted misinformation about a petition filed by Sharjeel Imam.
The thread below will explain how the OpIndia article is terribly wrong.
LiveLaw had posted that Sharjeel Imam’s petition regarding bail in the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case was listed before a bench of Justices Bela Trivedi & SC Sharma on October 22. LiveLaw had also updated that the matter was posted to Oct 25 as it was not taken up that day.
#Thread on the South African Constitutional Court judgment allowing a Tamil Hindu girl to wear nose-stud in school as a cultural practice, which was cited by Sr Adv Kamat in #HijabBan case. Remarkable the manner in which SA court upheld minority rights & cultural diversity.
An interesting aspect from the South African judgment was that it did not go into whether wearing of the nose-stud was an essential or mandatory practice. What matters is if it is a "sincere belief".
Differentiating between mandatory and voluntary practice falls short of Constitutional project which promotes and celebrates diversity. We cannot celebrate diversity by permitting it only when no other option remains - what a beautiful exposition
Petitioner : Expelling student for not wearing uniform disproportionate.
Bench : You're not expelled.
Petitioner : I'm denied entry. Same effect as expulsion.
Bench : If someone expelled from train for not having ticket, can it be termed disproportionate? #HijabBan#KarnatakaHC
A good judgement to read on #MayDay is the 2020 SC judgment which quashed the Gujarat Govt order exempting Factories from paying overtime wages to workers. The Court emphatically said that " a workers’ right to life cannot be contingent on the mercy of employer
or the State"
Notably, the judgment acknowledged that labour rights are "hard won" rights which cannot be diluted citing the excuse of pandemic.
State cannot permit exploitation of workers making their "hard won" rights illusory, SC said. #MayDay2021
During pandemic, State should be more protective of workers than diluting their rights citing difficulties of employer.
"...financial losses cannot be offset on the weary shoulders of
the laboring worker, who provides the backbone of the economy", the Court said.
Scenes from a court after fundamental rights have been linked to fundamental duties.
Lawyer : My client has been jailed for writing against the government.
Judge : Why would anyone write against the govt? Is it something expected of a good citizen?
Lawyer : No my lord. But it may be seen that my client is a dutiful citizen. He has donated to the PMCARES . Has installed all apps of govt. He signs national anthem before movies. Regularly watches republic day parades and the channels of the Republic.
Judge : Oh okay. In that case, bail granted subject to condition that he will use social media only to retweet national leaders for next 10 days.
"once we perform our duties, rights will automatically be safeguarded"
So on this #ConstitutionDay what do we see : 1. Nearly 10 lakh people in JK denied rights to access 4G internet despite SC pronouncements on proportionality principle. 2. Discussions about bringing State monitoring over citizens' decisions to choose life partner and religion.
3. A Supreme Court which is getting increasingly wary of holding the executive to account to the constitution. 4. Increased state intolerance towards citizen movements and protests. Use of sedition, NSA, UAPA to crack down dissent. #ConstitutionDay
5. Parliament which acts like a rubber stamp passing laws without effective discussions. 6. Increased impunity for hate speech against minorities. 7. Election Commission not doing anything to control brazen communal propaganda in elections.