“Oh, my God! What sacrilege!” screamed some politicians.
For a moment I thought they were concerned about the carbon emissions from the burning of paper. That struck a chord with me. I was about to start raising slogans against Anna Hazare.
Then, I heard the same politicians claiming that the act was an insult to the institution of Parliament. They were searching for ways to visit punishment on Anna Hazare. The slogan died inside my mouth.
In the US, an American citizen deliberately burned the Stars and Stripes, merely to test the constitutional validity of a law that banned burning of the national flag. Note, he did not burn paper or cloth, but what the flag signified. The law abridged the citizen’s right, Freedom of Expression. The US Supreme Court, in a way, said, “Go ahead. You have the right.” An American citizen burning the US flag as a protest action is not an insult, either to the flag or to the country. That is an enlightened judgment.
In India, a public official, a Parliamentarian to boot, is thinking that burning a mere Parliamentary bill, the intention to enact a law, is an insult, not to the nation but to the Parliament. This, when the institution that makes laws has faced repeated insults from and abuses by its own members – storming to the well of the House, wrenching microphones and hurling them at one another (more in the legislative assemblies of the states), not abiding by the rules of engagement in the Parliament, delinquency … the list is endless.
On the other hand what Anna Hazare did was very mild and carried conviction too – he did not like what the bill represents, in his mind a wishy-washy and patently ineffective instrument to curb graft in governance.His act of defiance cannot be seen as anything but his assertion of his freedom of expression.
I am wondering why some interested citizen of the country cannot bring a PIL against the politician who equated burning of a mere bill to insulting an institution, on the grounds that he does not understand what our Constitution stands for, Freedom of Expression, for one. He should be disqualified to be a Parliamentarian on that score alone. I want to know whether that politician will then claim recourse to his freedom of expression to justify his statement.
But what I suspect would happen is, a Parliamentary bill will be drafted that will list out the things one can burn in protest and the things that cannot be so abused. I would then expect that bill will be burned, by Baba Ramdev, as ever waiting in the wings to upstage Anna Hazare. The question then will be, “Should the bill refer to its own sanctity and protection against being burnt?”
That will lead you to the famous self-reference paradox of Bertrand Russell!
Raghuram Ekambaram
8 comments:
Government's version is jokepal and Team Anna's version is sickpal, we cannot create such a monster in our country.
To me book burning is something that I just abhor. does not matter what book it is
Pala, in the current one, the bill is not the target, whereas in the case of Salman Rushdie's book, the book itslef was the target. Here what the book signifies can evoke strong negative reactions that manifests itself in the act. I do make that distinction. The portester who burnt the American flag is not showing his displeasure at America per se, but what America is being made into, what the flag is becoming a symbol of. What Anna seems to have done is show his displeasure at the process that brought this bill. I am saying he has the right to show his protest in the strongest possible term and burning the bill is OK. This is how Serrano's Piss Christ must also be veiwed, in my opinion.
Thanks for drawing me out, on the other side of the fence from you!
Raghuram Ekambaram
Balu, in my opinion Anna is well within his citizenship rights to do what he pleased with the bill (the only exception is it should not be used to incite crowds). Anna was fine this time round!
Raghuram Ekambaram
I liked the joke at the beginning of your article - about the carbon emission! Well, our parliamentarians are such jokers. Certainly Anna Hazare has every right to protest the Bill especially after all the efforts he made to get a better Bill passed.
Thanks for agreeing Matheikal; and you enjoying the joke is a bonus for me!
Raghuram Ekambaram
Raghu, it is a very sad commentary that most of the law makers do not know what constitutes insult to Parliament, and/or the spirit of the Constitution. AH is not a MP, he did not even tear the papers inside Parliament, while many of the worthies, as you observed, have shred Bills and Statements they were not in agreement with right in the well of the House, in full glare of the TV, and with impunity.
I loved your 'bill refer(ring) to its own sanctity and protection against being burnt'...that is too funny.
Thanks Aditi, for enjoying and more importantly endorsing the thought.
I hope you had seen some parallels - I apprecaite what Binayak Sen did in the tribal areas but his induction into the Planning Commission group - a big no to that. I am not so sure about what Hazare is doing but I support his right to do what he thinks right. It appears that I am born for tight-rope walking!
Raghuram Ekambaram
Post a Comment