Scenes of a few Australian cricketers gesturing to the president of the Board of Control of Cricket in India (BCCI), Sharad Pawar to leave the podium after the ICC Champions Trophy presentation had been flashed across all media worldwide. Pawar declined initially from commenting on the issue and dismissed it as something trivial. He however later, asked for a formal apology from the Australian team, because, “If they apologise, it would be a good signal to the people of this country (read India)”, as he put it. As per reports, the Australian team captain sent his formal apology to Pawar and has even tried to contact him personally. All this is fine…but was the Australian demeanour just Aussie arrogance, as perceived by the host nation, or were they just eager to receive the award? If so, then is this freedom of expression universal? Are there any limits to it? Or is just a matter of perspective? Who decides this?
Almost all democracies have signed the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and expressed their allegiance to uphold the freedom of expression. Ironically, all democracies have a clause that curtails this freedom. It may be interesting to note that the Australian Constitution does not have a direct reference to this freedom, but it is implied in various sections of it and the various international covenants signed by the Australian government. Most of the clauses curtailing this freedom have a yardstick that says, “What may be offensive or cause national unrest”. I can understand the “national unrest” bit, but, who is to decide the “offensive” part?
In India, there are self-appointed “moral police”, most of them from political parties who want to make their presence felt. Some of their areas of “offensiveness” are “Valentine’s Day”, “obscene movies”, “public display of affection”, and many similar such topics. They go on a rampage and accost anyone endorsing these. These people may feel they are doing society good by stopping such “morally offensive” behaviour. But they must realise that society is mature enough to think for itself and it does not need them to do so. Moreover, most civilisations in human history have prospered when there has been a healthy exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Expression awakens society and does wonders for it. How far one goes in expressing themselves depends entirely on the individual, and it is he or she who has to decide what is best.
Freedom of expression is a basic right of individuals, and must not be denied to them. According to me, it is very closely linked to the right to choose, as everyone is free to accept or decline what he or she is exposed to. If someone is bold enough to express himself or herself, they should be responsible and mature to face the consequences of it. Curtailing or suppressing this freedom will only lead to frustration and anger, which in the past has proven lethal to society at large.
Coming back to the Australian team, who were probably just carried away by the moment, and most Australians would agree to this But, one billion Indians who watched what transpired that day, believe that the Australian team was arrogant and impolite. Well, freedom of expression is probably just a matter of perspective!
Almost all democracies have signed the United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and expressed their allegiance to uphold the freedom of expression. Ironically, all democracies have a clause that curtails this freedom. It may be interesting to note that the Australian Constitution does not have a direct reference to this freedom, but it is implied in various sections of it and the various international covenants signed by the Australian government. Most of the clauses curtailing this freedom have a yardstick that says, “What may be offensive or cause national unrest”. I can understand the “national unrest” bit, but, who is to decide the “offensive” part?
In India, there are self-appointed “moral police”, most of them from political parties who want to make their presence felt. Some of their areas of “offensiveness” are “Valentine’s Day”, “obscene movies”, “public display of affection”, and many similar such topics. They go on a rampage and accost anyone endorsing these. These people may feel they are doing society good by stopping such “morally offensive” behaviour. But they must realise that society is mature enough to think for itself and it does not need them to do so. Moreover, most civilisations in human history have prospered when there has been a healthy exchange of ideas and viewpoints. Expression awakens society and does wonders for it. How far one goes in expressing themselves depends entirely on the individual, and it is he or she who has to decide what is best.
Freedom of expression is a basic right of individuals, and must not be denied to them. According to me, it is very closely linked to the right to choose, as everyone is free to accept or decline what he or she is exposed to. If someone is bold enough to express himself or herself, they should be responsible and mature to face the consequences of it. Curtailing or suppressing this freedom will only lead to frustration and anger, which in the past has proven lethal to society at large.
Coming back to the Australian team, who were probably just carried away by the moment, and most Australians would agree to this But, one billion Indians who watched what transpired that day, believe that the Australian team was arrogant and impolite. Well, freedom of expression is probably just a matter of perspective!
Comments
Post a Comment