“The Harm Principle”

First - some must read links that counter Arundhati Roy's arguments

By Faking News - http://blog.fakingnews.com/2010/10/an-open-letter-to-arundhati-roy/

By Great Bong - http://greatbong.net/2008/12/16/the-algebra-of-infinite-fundamentalism/
By Offstumped - http://www.dailypioneer.com/292729/Intellectually-dishonest.html
By Kanchan Gupta - http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com/2010/10/privilege-of-being-arundhati-roy.html

This post however is not about Arundhati Roy and her rants/ramblings/literature/rhetoric etc. The above 4 posts sum up the feelings of "millions" of people aptly (given that "millions" is a word that can be used freely, am taking that liberty too!).

Given her penchant to associate herself with "movements" that are "anti-India", her joining the chorus of "azaadi" seekers came as no surprise/shock to anybody. However, the media's attempts to view her comments in isolation and not as a continuation of her past rhetoric on other violent agitations in the country is very disturbing. The media has once again been succesfull in trivialising this entire issue and also in diverting it from the madness of Arundhati Roy. TV media had debates on whether the debate over Arundhati was an over-reaction! CNN-IBN's Sagarika Ghose went ahead and classified Arundhati's utterances as "creative freedom" that are being curbed by the state! Ofcourse, when asked by what stretch of imagination do her remarks constitute "creative freedom", we get no answer!

And then we have this editorial by The Hindu. Sample this line (emphasis mine):

"In his classic defence of free speech, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill laid down what is known as the 'harm principle.' It postulates that the only justification for silencing a person against his will is to prevent him from causing harm to others."

Small deviation - The emphasised line is common sense. Calling it "harm principle" to make it sound theoritically uplifting and supremely intellectual sounds somewhat funny.

Anyways, let's come back to the emphasis. So The Hindu quotes some author, who says a person can be silenced if his/her utterances are causing harm to others. Now, let's understand this statement in the context of A.Roy's statements. She has been a strong vocal supporter (CNN-IBN has a list of some her statements) of the Maoists - the same guys who go about blasting school buildings, government offices, railway tracks and also occasionally kill policemen. In my, and surely yours, dictionary, these constitute "harm". Now, are we to believe that these thugs are not emboldened by the support receieved by the likes of Arundhati Roy? By so strongly advocating their murderous cause, isn't Arundhati Roy causing "harm" to the civil society? Is it so unreasonable to assume that by her constant complaints against the "Indian Democracy", she is not causing "harm" to the system? By openly encouraging the stone pelters in Kashmir, she is not causing "harm"? In her fetish to write prose, she talks about "graves of Dalit Jawans", as if the other graves are of less significance. Is this not causing "harm" to the families of those who sacrificied their lives for this country? If not, what would you classify as "harm", Mr. N.Ram? If yes, should Arundhati Roy be "silenced", Mr. N.Ram ?

I do not wish to get into your bashing of the BJP and quoting of non-existence of some laws in certain countries (am quite used to both these styles of yours, and hence don't see a need to seek a clarification from you).

My next grouse is the quality of letters you published in your news paper today. Incidentally, none of them criticize your editorial. Most of them glorify Arundhati Roy. Those which don't are way too mild in their criticsim (if it can be called that). Are we to assume that your newspaper has recieved no sane criticism of either Roy or your editorial? Or have they not been published because they might cause "harm" to the newspaper?

Particularly, the 8th letter in this link is very disturbing. The writer (who is from Hyderabad) compares the beauty of Srinagar's natural wonders in the 1950's to the dirtiness surrounding them now, and reaches a conclusion that this "indifference" by the Indian state is the reason for the anger. Seriously Mr. N.Ram - that logic is what you found worth publishing in the newspaper? Shall I now try and compare Hyderabad of the 1950's to the Hyderabad of now, rue about the "indifference" and throw stones on the secretariat? Which Indian city has retained it's beauty from the 1950's? So, now all metros should start agitations I guess.

Freedom of Speech - the one that you so passionately espouse - is complete only when you publish alternate views and clarify your ambivalent stands. Else, it will "harm" the reputation of your newspaper.

Sincerely,