Hardly a month goes without news of protests by groups claiming that their religious sentiments were hurt by a cartoon, film, or other works of art and literature. I think it is perfectly okay. Everybody has the right to be offended and to protest (peacefully and democratically). But the trouble starts when they start demanding that the offending work of art should be banned and the artist punished. Some of them also resort to violence – perhaps thinking that pelting stones at policemen in duty or innocent bystanders is a lesser sin than voicing views that may go against the so called religious sentiments of some fanatics. On the other end of the spectrum are trouble-mongers who incite mobs to aggression or level unfounded allegations against their respectable opponents, and then invoke right to expression as a shield against imminent legal action. They are like those who take the right to drive as the right to run over pedestrians. In case of driving, there is complete clarity in what is covered under the right and what is not. As long as you have a driver’s license, drive on public road and follow traffic rules, nobody would question your right to drive. It is because of the lack of such clarity on the right to expression, that we see people interpret it opportunistically to get away with sowing seeds of hatred on one side and to silence the voice of their critics on the other. 

In my opinion, as long as people make it clear that what they are expressing is their opinion, they have the right to express almost anything. One may opine that I am a fool (a personal insult) or that making LoC the permanent border is the best way out of the Kashmir quagmire (affecting patriotic sentiments), or that the teachings of a certain religion are laughably stupid (hurting religious feelings). As long as he is only expressing his thought, it is okay. Those who listen to him can decide for themselves whether or not to let his opinion influence their thought. However, if he accuses me of a crime, I might sue him for defamation and the onus is on him to prove what he said. This is because having done a crime is not a matter of opinion, but a claim that has to be factually established. Similarly, if a person instigates people to riot, the Government has to clamp down on that assembly and make arrests in the interest of law and order. The line between the two are thin, but not undiscernable. The key to distinguishing between the two cases is to stress on sense over sensitivity. If the claim or accusation is sensible (or true), then one has the right to air it regardless of how many people will be offended by it. For example, if we find hard evidence that the founder of a certain (hypothetical) religion has committed mass murders of his opponents, and that the texts of that religion encourage killing of those who do not follow its teachings, then it is not wrong to note that that religion has a very violent history and could pose a threat to peaceful coexistence of communities. The Government should ideally ban those religious texts because they incite followers to what is a crime under the law of the land, and it is unnecessary to take religious sentiments of people into consideration in such cases. 

While freedom of expression is important, maintaining social harmony and law and order is equally important. For both to go hand in hand, we have to have a culture that encourages questioning and criticism, so that even when somebody disagrees with our core beliefs, we would not hate or want to hurt them even as we try to defend our point of view. If we find that someone else is crossing the line, we can always take the legal recourse, rather than threaten with rowdyism. But this can happen only if people have faith in the government, and more importantly the government has faith in itself and its institutions. If the Government can ban a movie that has been cleared by the censor board because it cannot ensure peaceful screening, then it is sending wrong signal to those who have it their way by breaking the law. This is again a weakness of democracy in which decisions often sway towards the “safer” option and not the right choice. Unambiguous laws, coupled with bold and righteous governance is vital in safeguarding the rights that are enshrined in our Constitution.