How i wish the Great OSHO was alive to comment on the judgement anyone should be allowed to talk,debate all faths, Religion no doubt is the opiom of the masses

So would this ban be discussed in the secular TV shows - like MF Hussain's freedom of expression, that painter from Gujarat, Karan Johar apologising for calling Mumbai Bombay and so on have been debated to death by IBN, NDTV etc.

So when can we have a program on this?

"Clearly, not all attacks on the sacred are equally justified, especially when they are purely designed to cause maximum offence. But even here, there is a clear moral. If our feelings are hurt, it is far better to be censorious than to demand censorship. Blasphemy laws have no place in a civilised society."

http://www.guardian....asphemy-religion-law

Publishers of Bhasins, Rushdies and Nusreens are gleeful about these farcical bans on expressions. Going by select excerpts appearing in magazines and the net, these 'distinguished authors' are celebrities and milch cows not for any talent, insight or literary calibre.
It is apparently a big racket in India, involving government minions and even 'honourable' judges who squander scarce judicial time. In a country where an average litigation takes more than a decade, why do they even take up such petitions?
In this particular case, the HC has given such a specious 'reason' for its decision that the SC has to quash the upholding of the ban. That will of course be after ensuring a couple of more years of visibility to the book!
For example, the HC admits "several interpretations are possible" in case of religious scriptures. Then why get worked up about one interpretation, which is quite prevalent?
Of course, the philosophy of Islam – as well as of dominant Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc schools – did encourage 'terrorism' at one time. Plundering armies committed war crimes including massacres and sabotages in the name of religion. Even supposedly the most nonviolent religion, Jainism, was not an exception when it came to uproot Saivism in the South.
That is history, which no court or government can undo.
Do the worthies have valid reasons to conclude that the author's criticism of Islam was "done with deliberate and malicious intention" to "trigger senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order?" If so, nothing prevented them from prosecuting the author for THAT malfeasance – not for interpreting history.
Why should anyone in his or her senses object when someone gets rich through willing takers for his 166-page stuff at a neat price?

If Mr Pinaki Roy had studied the Indian Constitution, perhaps he had come to the conclusion, that all free expression is not enforced by statute in the constitution. The reason why Indians are being harmed in Australia, and frequently, is because some people like very maliciously to use their freedom of expression in a horrid manner. Perhaps, the Australians who attack Indian students, cannot be put into any specific category. I believe, that the nation is to blame.

I would like to ask, those who read the al Qaeda's website on the net, why are they investigated in Australia, Great Britain, The United States, and other temples of democracy? I believe, that expressing is not a sin, if it is not expressed with the intention of injuring other parties, either in spirit, or in the physical body. Do the various governments agree with my belief? They seem to be, when the lives of their citizens are fraught with danger.

Pinaki S Ray,

Did you, by any chance, objected to banning of Rushdie's Satanic Verses?

Just for my info only.

Pinaki Roy,

"If I want to deliberately see Mr Sundeep Dougal, in a bad light, and use slander against him by writing a book, then should my book not be banned?" -

No, the book should not be banned and in Western European countries will definitely not be banned !

If Mr Dougal feels hurt by the book, then the only recourse he will have in a democracy (western or European definition?) is that he can lodge a "libel" action against the author of the book in court for publicly breaching his character's integrity. And if he wins, he will get compensation determined by the court.

That is how freedom pervades in Western nations. The author of the above quote and some others in the forum seem to lack the understanding of the fundamentals of what constitutes a democratic nation."

It is easy to compare Indian democracy with the west but do pl throw light on the time n efforts it takes to get justice, if ever, if one goes thru the legal process.

Maybe, you can give us some examples of such quick justice one got in similar cases in India to motivate people to follow the course of law.

A book can be banned in any democratic society but only on the basis of its "contents" and not by any flimsy argument over whether the author has some "malicious" intention or not for whatever his purpose. I believe, this principle is well established in democratic (Western) nations.

And the "criteria for contents" that can enforce banning by the State are well defined. These, to state some explicitly, are e.g. pornography, State secrets etc etc. By State "secrets" are considered military arsenal and deployment, the State's intelligence gathering mechanism, i.e. spying, against its enemies and so on.

But to ban a book on the basis of its author's "malicious intent" is mind boggling. That is a very subjective assessment to say the least. I find such a judgment as capitulation to Islamic agenda in this case.

"If I want to deliberately see Mr Sundeep Dougal, in a bad light, and use slander against him by writing a book, then should my book not be banned?" -

No, the book should not be banned and in Western European countries will definitely not be banned !

If Mr Dougal feels hurt by the book, then the only recourse he will have in a democracy (western or European definition?) is that he can lodge a "libel" action against the author of the book in court for publicly breaching his character's integrity. And if he wins, he will get compensation determined by the court.

That is how freedom pervades in Western nations. The author of the above quote and some others in the forum seem to lack the understanding of the fundamentals of what constitutes a democratic nation.

If free speech, pernicious to the state of India, cannot be curbed, or free expression, for that matter, then how can crime be curbed in India? Why is the written word seen to be the most inviolable freedom, unless it is written by the al Qaeda? Why should not a book be banned, if it is considered to be a book which has it's basis of perception in slander? If I want to deliberately see Mr Sundeep Dougal, in a bad light, and use slander against him by writing a book, then should my book not be banned? By the way, what is slander? What is falsehood? Am I an authority on the life of Mr Dougal, that I pass judgement on the life of Mr Dougal? People must be careful, about how they express opinions, on others.

>> But, banning Satanic Verses is okay!!... Danish cartoons aren't (okay).

As usual you have not read any of my view! Do you always speak out of ignorance? Are all sanghis liars?

Anwar,
It less easier said than done.what kind of maturity you are talking about when highly educated and well placed people indulge in terrorism.Like you said the best way to answer criticism is counter criticism which is same as countering the terrorism of those jihadis by counter terrorism which unfortunately some people like you want to interpret as atrocities against the minorities.

Desh Premee
Delhi, India

May I add to what you said.Bringing down a dilapidated structure called Babri which was deliberately built in the heart of Hindu holy land as elsewhere by Hindu Virodhi elements is a crime and bringing down a historic and world renowned Buddha statue at Bamiyan in Afghanistan is an accomplishment.desecrating Hindu temples in kashmir valley is no crime but removing unauthorized and overnightly built mosques by local administration is a crime.

"Banning books is obnoxious,...."

But, banning Satanic Verses is okay!!

M F Husaain's blasphemous drawings are okay but Danish cartoons aren't.

Islamist logic in full play!

>> implemented in a vacuum or in a powder keg.

There he goes again!

Utter rot! There was no mob before the ban. There is none now. But if the ban had not been imposed, the bloody mob would have been "manufactured" by some mad mullah or the other. That needs to be checked. I am not for a minute arguing that the SOB who wrote this book is doing it for freespeech or discussion, but the problem here is the twisted logic given by the court.

Would we now see a case of more and more books being brought in to court with the same specious charge? The Islamists frankly deserve the Hindutva, just as this Anwaar deserves all the contempt he gets every day from other morons and hate-mongers on this board.

Arun,

>> I would be one of those Absolutists. For me there is no reason to ban a book.

Banning books is obnoxious, but invoking other laws currently on our statute books against authors whom the Bombay High Court described as indulging in criticism that is malicious and may create ill-will between different communities may be a reasonable compromise. It does make a difference whether your absolutist laws are to be implemented in a vacuum or in a powder keg.

Arun Maheshwari,

"Judge for yourselves - is the judge a pseudo secular, a hindutva supporter or just plain confused like the rest of us aam-admi."

How abt 'shit-scared'?

Anwaar, I would be one of those Absolutists. For me there is no reason to ban a book.

It is quite amusing how our "powers that be" agree with the colonialists view that the "colonized are kids or adoloscents as individuals and as cultures" and need to be treated that way. The British did never leave us - they left us with sad brown caricatures of themselves - the originals since then have evolved but the caricatures can't as they are just copies.

Essentially, the judge is saying we need to ban a book because we cannot maintain basic "law and order". So much for our global/regional power aspirations.

Curiously the judge at the same time plays both into the hands of the hindutva brigade that the ban is because the book is about Islam - see we are ruled by pseudo seculars. At the same it plays into the argument to stereotype muslims "... mobbish and violent".

Judge for yourselves - is the judge a pseudo secular, a hindutva supporter or just plain confused like the rest of us aam-admi.

So much ado over a book because it is criticises secular (i.e. Islamic) policies. It would not be wrong here to note that this means censorship can be achieved in India if you threaten mob violence over the work in question. So when is the government planning to ban Google?

I totally agree when you say:

"And, of course, there is the minor matter of mobs, inflammable or otherwise, not being given to collective readings or spontaneous combustion."

Clearly, this author's intent was malicious, but citing the fear of the mob is a slippery slope for any lunatic or political figure would plead the fear of mob for any inconvenient expression. It should be the job of the state to ensure that the mobs do not overrule the law of the land.

The Bombay High Court ruling has considerable wisdom in it. It says, "In our country, everything is open to criticism and religion is no exception..... Healthy criticism provokes thought, encourages debate and helps us evolve. But criticism cannot be malicious and must not lead to creating ill-will between different communities... It must lead to sensible dialogue." The ruling should reasonably satisfy those who are strong supporters of free speech as well as those who are respectful of the requirements of our being a mature and civilized society. Absolutists and purists may still have some objections, but most of us can probably live with the court's injunction.

In India, "freedom of expression" is sanctioned by "eminent secularists" and the "secular media". :-)

If an editor is arrested in Calcutta for posting an article by an atheist, it is "secularism" applied to the principle of "freedom of expression".. he..he.. :-)

'The translation of the book is available. The possibility of its falling in the hands of an inflammable mob cannot be ruled out ;

Precautionary step is welcome as we saw what happened in case of Cartoon protest marches .

But the TRUTH still remains that Mobs decide what we should write and read !

"It is an aggravated form of criticism made with a malicious and deliberate intention to outrage the religious feelings of Muslims."

The best way to answer criticism is to offer counter-criticism. Malicious attempts to outrage the religious feelings of a community will always be made, especially if there is money in it. There is no legal solution to this problem. People do not go about insuting each other's religious feelings not because of any law, but because of a certain social and cultural maturity.

Publishers of Bhasins, Rushdies and Nusreens are gleeful about these farcical bans on expressions. Going by select excerpts appearing in magazines and the net, these 'distinguished authors' are celebrities and milch cows not for any talent, insight or literary calibre.
It is apparently a big racket in India, involving government minions and even 'honourable' judges who squander scarce judicial time. In a country where an average litigation takes more than a decade, why do they even take up such petitions?
In this particular case, the HC has given such a specious 'reason' for its decision that the SC has to quash the upholding of the ban. That will of course be after ensuring a couple of more years of visibility to the book!
For example, the HC admits "several interpretations are possible" in case of religious scriptures. Then why get worked up about one interpretation, which is quite prevalent?
Of course, the philosophy of Islam – as well as of dominant Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc schools – did encourage 'terrorism' at one time. Plundering armies committed war crimes including massacres and sabotages in the name of religion. Even supposedly the most nonviolent religion, Jainism, was not an exception when it came to uproot Saivism in the South.
That is history, which no court or government can undo.
Do the worthies have valid reasons to conclude that the author's criticism of Islam was "done with deliberate and malicious intention" to "trigger senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order?" If so, nothing prevented them from prosecuting the author for THAT malfeasance – not for interpreting history.
Why should anyone in his or her senses object when someone gets rich through willing takers for his 166-page stuff at a neat price?