Aurangzeb Row emphasizes the demise of freedom of speech

Censorship has a thousand fathers; freedom of speech is orphans. Not only orphans, but also abused. The level of abuse has increased due to his remarks praising Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, and police complaints were filed against the Samjawadi Party Mla Abu Asim Azmi this month.

Nowadays, Aurangzeb is not a good person. He was a paranoid king who killed his brother, imprisoned his father, and treated the Hindus cruelly. He also taxed non-Muslims Jiaqi tax. Praise such people is offensive not only to Hindus but to Sikhs. He got their ninth master, the master teg bahadur was executed. However, in a democracies, no one should be prosecuted for holding an offensive view of someone.

Liberal democracy should uphold the “harm principle”. John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest advocates of the liberals, said: “The only purpose of exercising power correctly against his will is to prevent harm to others.”

The harm of the principle of harm is the “principle of crime”. It lowers the criteria for imposing restrictions on freedom of speech; worse, it introduces an ambiguous standard for restricting freedom. This also puts us in the dangerous territory of “harm emotions”. The harm is objective (physical, financial, etc.), while the harming emotions and offensive emotions are subjective. The law is guided by objective reality or should not be guided by subjectivity.

Ideally, hurt emotions or religious feelings should not be justifications for limiting freedom of speech. Unfortunately, India (like the Islamic state) has anti-despicable laws. Even more unfortunately, these harsh laws were invoked unqualified. Marine Corps police have reportedly charged Azmi’s Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 299, 302 and 356 (1).

But verse 299 says: “Whoever incites the religious feelings of Indian citizens with intentional and malicious intentions, in verbal, verbal or written or written or visible statements, insulting or attempting to insult religion or religious beliefs, in the form of three years shall be punished or insulted by the religious beliefs of that class.

Azmi’s compliment to Aurangzeb is indeed pathetic, but how on earth, any praise for the cruel emperor is angry about “the religious feeling of Indian citizens” or “religious beliefs that insult religion or religious beliefs”?

The right way to refute a false and misleading argument in one book is not to burn or prohibit it, but to write another or publicly oppose it. Again, the correct way to rubbish Azmi’s twisted ideas is to expose them, not sue him.

Police and the government complained about politicians, filmmakers, writers, etc., claiming that their comments, movies, books, etc. can trigger riots or cause legal and order issues. If there is a chance, they will ban or severely curb any comments on any subject, as anything will damage emotions or anger religious feelings. The moral obligation of the judiciary is to reduce excessive police officers, rather than freedom of expression for citizens and politicians. The judiciary must speak rational and prudent language.

As I wrote before: “The ballast of irrationality, calmness and gravity, the action of emotions is like the failure of robots; the combination of accidental loops makes their work arbitrary and often dangerous. Unlimited emotionalist occasions are human instincts, the stupidest ideas, and promotes established, and promotes established attitudes; of course, politicians with self-righteous liars and pious attitudes. ((

The consequence is political, social and cultural severity. The area around Aurangzeb’s grave died more than 300 years ago, and he witnessed the violence. The conflict broke out in the Mahar region of Nagpur, causing more than twelve people to burn cars and stones.

Hindutva voters have clamored to remove traces of Aurangzeb from history. In this work, they rely on the emotions of the Hindus. At present, the saffron brigade is rising, but times have changed. Different breeds of political activists can also use the same sensualism and asylum to undermine Hindu ideology. For example, some enterprising Odiya politicians could, for over two thousand years, launch a campaign against Biharis against the Biharis to conquer Kalinga’s bloody conquest.

Also, the boot can be on the other foot. Hindutva advocates should not ignore this reality.

If someone can be tried to appreciate Aurangzeb, others may also be prosecuted for praising Ashok or any other king. This will cause another blow to freedom of speech.

End of the article