Watching Vinay Rai on television, as he discussed why he had filed a criminal case against Google and Facebook, which seeks to hold them liable for not censoring content, I was struck by how reasonable he sounded. How could anyone post objectionable material against religious figures and offend the sentiments of people, he asked? Why did he not go to the companies concerned directly? Why should he? He went to the government but found little response till recently.

Someone brought up the issue of the impracticality of the whole thing — how could Facebook monitor and censor millions of posts being uploaded by the second? That did not seem to concern him. The courts seem to see the validity of his sensible sounding arguments; they have already warned the concerned companies to come up with a solution or “Otherwise, like China we may be forced to pass orders banning all such websites”.
Meanwhile, Salman Rushdie has cancelled his visit to the Jaipur Literature Festival. He has been there before and has been coming to India regularly for a few years now. This time, suddenly as it were, a demand was raised to stop him from coming to India. On what grounds? We do not know. But the demand came not from some obscure rabble rousers but from the Darul Uloom of Deoband, an institution of higher learning with a history going back nearly 150 years. It had opposed the idea of Pakistan and has distanced itself from extremism. Now Maulana Abul Qasim, the vice-chancellor of this very same organisation, wants Rushdie’s entry to this country “prohibited forever”. Given the craven nature of this government — every government really — this may well happen one day, because they could just withdraw his PIO card.
This is the emerging new face of intolerance. At one time the protests were in the form of morchas, destruction of government property and lots of shouting into television cameras. Books were burnt, bandhs were called. The urbane liberals muttered about the great unwashed and the wages of cheap populism. Politicians, after resisting a bit, finally gave in to the tyranny of numbers.
Now, it is all very civil — file a criminal complaint, just issue one statement at the right time. Timing is everything. Mr Rai’s case comes on the heels of Union minister for communication and information technology Kapil Sibal’s warning to social networking sites and search engines to pre-screen their content. The Darul Uloom knows that with elections in five states, including and especially Uttar Pradesh, the Congress cannot afford to do anything to “upset” the minorities. The Jaipur Literature Festival has come at an excellent time for Mr Qasim and his cohorts.
But while politicians tend to quickly give in to any hint of trouble from religious, caste and other such groups invoking hurt sentiments, the judiciary’s take on the issue of the social media is worrying. It doesn’t take into account the nature of the Internet, treating it like television or print. Asking Google, Facebook or any such site to maintain a “stringent check” is virtually asking them to shut down, and clearly the courts are ready to do that.
Yet, it is not the technical aspects that should concern us. The main objection to what Mr Rai or the Darul Uloom are doing is something more fundamental: it concerns free speech. Mr Rai, Mr Qasim and those who tried to object to M.F. Husain are all essentially saying that free speech is all very well, but leave religious figures out of it. This is what Mr Rai says in an interview: “The content I have submitted to the court deeply offends several religions, including Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. It involves pages and groups where users have mocked Hindu gods and goddesses, Prophet Mohammad and Jesus Christ. Such content can create communal riots across the country.” And we know exactly what Rushdie’s and Husain’s “crimes” were.
India has a long tradition of religious satire. Traditional Ramlilas are full of ribaldry and fun. These existed much before the Internet was invented. As a private citizen, I may have very strong views about Hinduism or any other religion. Are we to understand that from now on any expression of satire or dissent will be prohibited? Can I not write a blog where I challenge received interpretations of religions? In an earlier time, I would have to worry about goons entering my house if they found something objectionable; now it could be a court order against which I may not have any recourse. Today, they talk about religion; soon there will be objectors about political and social views. The space for independent, liberal thought was already tiny and shrinking by the minute; today it has almost disappeared.
Fortunately, there are forces much larger than what overtly sensitive petitioners, wise theologians and shifty politicians can understand and cope with. The manner in which a collective protest by Wikipedia and other big sites, backed by the worldwide online community has made American politicians back down and big corporates retreat is a good example of how attempts to curtail freedom will be fought in the future. No longer can anyone apply their old, outdated mentality to tomorrow’s ideas as even China is beginning to realise. Try and stop a “blasphemous” comment here and it will surface
somewhere else. The self-proclaimed guardians of public morality and piety will soon find that they have been
outfoxed.
But that should not stop us — writers, artists, filmmakers and freedom-loving citizens — from doing our bit. The state has capitulated to extremist forces — why else would it not offer Rushdie full security — so no support will come from there. It is up to all of us to stand up to those who try and muzzle anyone who does not agree with their point of view.