A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims

Recently the Bombay High Court on Wednesday, January 6, 2010, upheld the decision of the Maharashtra Government in 2007 to ban the advocate RV Basin’s book- A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims. This has drawn flaks from the so-called liberal minded people for the alleged fettering of creative thoughts and freedom of speech and expression. In fact, if we analyse the whole issue dispassionately, we cannot blame the Bombay High Court for upholding the state ban on the controversial book- A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims - simply on the holy grounds of freedom of speech and expression. If we observe the recent developments in the judiciary, it is not difficult to see that courts too echo the feelings and sentiments of the community at large. The courts too have evolved along with the times. Admittedly, intellectual thoughts and the artistic expressions indeed are two bulwarks of human development. This also epitomises the progress the humanity has made rapidly. Notwithstanding these stated progressive positions, the writers cannot claim to have absolute right to freedom of speech and expression. Like any other right, this fundamental right too has certain responsibilities emotionally involved in it.

The judgement of the honourable Bombay High Court has pointed out that the criticism can be academic but should not degenerate into insulting comments. In its historic judgement, the court has ruled that any religion can be criticised, but a malicious criticism aimed at promoting communal hatred and painting the whole community as villainous is not permissible. This view of the court should be welcomed by any liberal citizen notwithstanding the disapproval this is likely to invite from the right-wingers of all communities. The court’s observations upholding the ban after listening to the views of all concerned must be taken in the right spirit.
Nevertheless, this is not to justify the ill-advised banning of anything, which is uncomfortable for the state governments for reasons of political expediency. As of now, any state move to impose ban on creative expressions like art, dramas, and films merely to escape any political fallout or to satisfy the social demands from the power groups, only boost the demand for the banned material. In fact, the state machinery can hardly effectively enforce a ban on the creative expressions thanks to the wired world nowadays. Already, frequent bans founded on political expediency fail to amuse the people and have diminishing returns on their impact. Therefore, the state would be well advised not to post-haste jump to the bandwagon of political bans of creative expressions – which will only be counterproductive. On their part, the writers too have a moral obligation to be sensitised over the sensitivity and sensibility of the fellow citizens. Similarly, they should refrain from hurting the sentiments of the people compelling the latter to take up cudgels seeking the time-tested formula of ban – which the incumbent governments are willing to oblige readily in a democracy.