4 ms·

> Citizens are routinely persecuted under laws that literally prohibit hurting people's religious feelings It would be interesting to hear from Indians on thes

> Citizens are routinely persecuted under laws that literally prohibit hurting people's religious feelings It would be interesting to hear from Indians on these issues. I'm not a citizen nor do I live there, but religious conflict often has cost many lives in India. For example, there were the 2002 religious riots in Gujarat which made Modi, now Prime Minister of the country, so controversial; 1,000-2,000 people died and there were brutal gang rapes, people being burnt alive and other horrors. Going back to the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, up to a million people died and many millions were displaced. In Germany there are laws against free expression of Nazi ideas. Perhaps in India it is appropriate to minimize religious conflict. I don't know enough to offer an opinion but it's a very serious consideration.

logicchains 12y ago
Expressing Nazi ideas is prohibited in Germany because of what following Nazi ideas can lead to, not just to avoid conflict. If you forbid peoples' expression in the name of avoiding conflict then you simply allow the ideas of the most bloodthirsty, conflict-minded group to dominate, as this group is the group most likely to get offended, and hence suppressing any ideas that offend this group necessarily leaves this group's ideas unchallenged.
- logicchains 12y ago
  To whoever downvoted me, was it in objection to my implied description as bloodthirsty of the group behind the religious riots in which "1,000-2,000 people died and there were brutal gang rapes, people being burnt alive and other horrors"? If so, I'd be interested to hear by what standards such behaviour could be considered anything other than bloodthirsty and conflict-minded.
- _nedR 12y ago
  >>Expressing Nazi ideas is prohibited in Germany because of what following Nazi ideas can lead to, not just to avoid conflict. Yes. Expressing Nazi ideas can lead to violence, extremism, racial and religious discrimination, anti-democratic activity among other things. That's pretty much what the OP said, and is also the original motivation behind India's censorship laws. I am of the opinion that the case for censorship is more justified in India than in Germany. As the Gujarat 2002 riots and Assam 2012 riots (where Indian govt. temporarily throttled sms traffic to prevent spread of rumours) have pretty much proven - tactless media coverage or the spreading of rumours during tense situations could result in the deaths of thousands. Of course whether those laws are being abused (in ways including the one you described) is a whole nother question.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    >Expressing Nazi ideas can lead to violence, extremism, racial and religious discrimination, anti-democratic activity among other things. I didn't say Nazi ideas were banned because of this, I said they were banned because of what _following_ them can lead to. For contrast, compare an idea like "group X treats women like second-class citizen". Following this idea does no harm, it doesn't even do anything, as it's not a prescription that can be followed, it's just a statement. Expressing it could however still lead to a violence if group X is aggressive and conflict-minded. If expressing this idea is banned, then public discussion of the poor treatment of women by group x would be banned, and there wouldn't be any pressure for group x to improve its treatment of them.
lnkmails 12y ago
As much as I hate it, I think in the case of India, preventing religious conflicts is best compared to defending free speech. The amount of police force needed to protect people who in the name of free speech offend religious sentiments and the community that gets affected because of the speech would be prohibitive. Plus, Indians are in general too sensitive about religion in general though that is slowly fading away. We need more success stories of satellite launches and corruption free bureaucracy to start believing in science, democracy, judiciary more than religion. Even now, there are different family laws based on what religion a person is hailing from. This is done so people can still apply their religious morality when it comes to family matters. For many western folks, this can be confusing. I for one have long wanted a uniform civil code in India. When I was raised, I was not told about the indian judicial system and what it means to break country's laws. I was taught about not breaking the hindu code of law. So religion is part of pretty much everyone's upbringing. I know very few strong atheist Indians. (I am transforming from being a theist to an agnostic.) With religion and God, there seems to be a constant hope. With other things, especially in India, people do not have that hope. As far as the modi example goes, supreme court of India did not find Modi guilty. So as per the country's laws, he is allowed to contest elections. He did so and won. People voted for him because he gave them a hope of development. He has been elected chief minister thrice in the state of Gujarat even winning elections after the riots. There is also a number's game here. 80% of Indians are Hindus and only 15% are muslims. The media coverage often cited the burning of Hindu pilgrims in train as the starting point of the riots which probably swayed the voters. What happened in Gujarat is completely wrong but I'd say it happened because some religious fanatics decided to throw propaganda speeches (in the name of exercising free speech) worsening the problem. I do believe however there is in general liberty to free speech as long as it doesn't involve religious flame wars or speeches filled with national hate (You may want to read up on arrests of pro-LTTE speakers) . The isolated examples quoted in the original article can be argued case by case and as far as I know convictions have not been obtained. So the law is taking it's course. The very act of arresting them is violating civil liberties but there is no strong organization like the ACLU in India (there is PUCL but it's pretty dormant) to help citizens. And common people do not want to spend the money on lawyers and courts. So police force will continue to abuse their powers because no one keeps them in check. I've personally faced police excesses and it was more of a taboo to explain it to your family that you were picked up for questioning. In India, the very act of you being questioned by police is seen as a character issue. Long story short, when I see first world struggling with civil liberties (I live in USA now), I do not expect India to do better. It is also unfair to compare a much younger democracy with an older democracy that still hasn't figured out civil liberties in digital age completely. I also do not expect India to lead the world in terms of civil liberties in next 20 years (either digital or regular). I do hope the remaining humanity in Indians don't vanish. Otherwise, we'd implode.

logicchains 12y ago

Expressing Nazi ideas is prohibited in Germany because of what following Nazi ideas can lead to, not just to avoid conflict. If you forbid peoples' expression in the name of avoiding conflict then you simply allow the ideas of the most bloodthirsty, conflict-minded group to dominate, as this group is the group most likely to get offended, and hence suppressing any ideas that offend this group necessarily leaves this group's ideas unchallenged.

logicchains 12y ago
To whoever downvoted me, was it in objection to my implied description as bloodthirsty of the group behind the religious riots in which "1,000-2,000 people died and there were brutal gang rapes, people being burnt alive and other horrors"? If so, I'd be interested to hear by what standards such behaviour could be considered anything other than bloodthirsty and conflict-minded.
_nedR 12y ago
>>Expressing Nazi ideas is prohibited in Germany because of what following Nazi ideas can lead to, not just to avoid conflict. Yes. Expressing Nazi ideas can lead to violence, extremism, racial and religious discrimination, anti-democratic activity among other things. That's pretty much what the OP said, and is also the original motivation behind India's censorship laws. I am of the opinion that the case for censorship is more justified in India than in Germany. As the Gujarat 2002 riots and Assam 2012 riots (where Indian govt. temporarily throttled sms traffic to prevent spread of rumours) have pretty much proven - tactless media coverage or the spreading of rumours during tense situations could result in the deaths of thousands. Of course whether those laws are being abused (in ways including the one you described) is a whole nother question.
- logicchains 12y ago
  >Expressing Nazi ideas can lead to violence, extremism, racial and religious discrimination, anti-democratic activity among other things. I didn't say Nazi ideas were banned because of this, I said they were banned because of what _following_ them can lead to. For contrast, compare an idea like "group X treats women like second-class citizen". Following this idea does no harm, it doesn't even do anything, as it's not a prescription that can be followed, it's just a statement. Expressing it could however still lead to a violence if group X is aggressive and conflict-minded. If expressing this idea is banned, then public discussion of the poor treatment of women by group x would be banned, and there wouldn't be any pressure for group x to improve its treatment of them.

lnkmails 12y ago

As much as I hate it, I think in the case of India, preventing religious conflicts is best compared to defending free speech. The amount of police force needed to protect people who in the name of free speech offend religious sentiments and the community that gets affected because of the speech would be prohibitive. Plus, Indians are in general too sensitive about religion in general though that is slowly fading away. We need more success stories of satellite launches and corruption free bureaucracy to start believing in science, democracy, judiciary more than religion. Even now, there are different family laws based on what religion a person is hailing from. This is done so people can still apply their religious morality when it comes to family matters. For many western folks, this can be confusing. I for one have long wanted a uniform civil code in India. When I was raised, I was not told about the indian judicial system and what it means to break country's laws. I was taught about not breaking the hindu code of law. So religion is part of pretty much everyone's upbringing. I know very few strong atheist Indians. (I am transforming from being a theist to an agnostic.) With religion and God, there seems to be a constant hope. With other things, especially in India, people do not have that hope. As far as the modi example goes, supreme court of India did not find Modi guilty. So as per the country's laws, he is allowed to contest elections. He did so and won. People voted for him because he gave them a hope of development. He has been elected chief minister thrice in the state of Gujarat even winning elections after the riots. There is also a number's game here. 80% of Indians are Hindus and only 15% are muslims. The media coverage often cited the burning of Hindu pilgrims in train as the starting point of the riots which probably swayed the voters. What happened in Gujarat is completely wrong but I'd say it happened because some religious fanatics decided to throw propaganda speeches (in the name of exercising free speech) worsening the problem. I do believe however there is in general liberty to free speech as long as it doesn't involve religious flame wars or speeches filled with national hate (You may want to read up on arrests of pro-LTTE speakers) . The isolated examples quoted in the original article can be argued case by case and as far as I know convictions have not been obtained. So the law is taking it's course. The very act of arresting them is violating civil liberties but there is no strong organization like the ACLU in India (there is PUCL but it's pretty dormant) to help citizens. And common people do not want to spend the money on lawyers and courts. So police force will continue to abuse their powers because no one keeps them in check. I've personally faced police excesses and it was more of a taboo to explain it to your family that you were picked up for questioning. In India, the very act of you being questioned by police is seen as a character issue. Long story short, when I see first world struggling with civil liberties (I live in USA now), I do not expect India to do better. It is also unfair to compare a much younger democracy with an older democracy that still hasn't figured out civil liberties in digital age completely. I also do not expect India to lead the world in terms of civil liberties in next 20 years (either digital or regular). I do hope the remaining humanity in Indians don't vanish. Otherwise, we'd implode.