Offence ≠ Obscenity: Who Draws the Line?

Metro India News | Hyderabad 

Today's The Hindu editorial, Force of Law, echoed questions that had been on my mind over the past few days. Having watched numerous videos posted by Gen Z during the protests, I found myself reflecting on the difference between offensive speech, obscene speech and the role of the State in responding to both. There is wit, humor, anger and a refreshing unwillingness to accept things at face value. Some posts may have been obscene or otherwise unlawful. I haven't come across many myself, but if they are, they should be examined by the competent authorities and dealt with according to law.

But in a democracy, offending people cannot be the threshold for State action. When politicians refer to the Prime Minister as "Chaiwala" or Rahul Gandhi as "Pappu", even during serious parliamentary debates, they lower the quality of democratic discourse themselves. If those who make our laws cannot uphold the dignity of debate, on what moral ground do they demand higher standards from young people on social media? Being offended is subjective. 

 A democratic government should have the confidence, maturity and sense of humor to tolerate criticism, satire and even offensive comments. It should intervene only when the law is broken, not when its authority is questioned. What is equally disturbing is the barrage of posts by government supporters, including public figures like Kangana Ranaut, portraying the protests as little more than skimpily clad girls, rave parties and anti-national gatherings. If the government is serious about tackling harmful content, why should scrutiny apply only to one side? 

I also see many BJP supporters enthusiastically sharing these narratives instead of trying to understand what Gen Z is saying. Perhaps it is easier to caricature a generation than to engage with the questions it is asking with intelligence, insight and irreverence. Or perhaps it is an attempt to reclaim ground that seems to have shifted so suddenly beneath their feet. I don't know. But the questions Gen Z is asking deserve engagement, not dismissal. The government's response has been even more worrying.

Decisions cannot be driven by complaints from ruling party members, local strongmen, media campaigns or social media outrage. They must be based on credible evidence and subjected to judicial scrutiny. The injuries suffered by policemen are serious and deserve a thorough investigation. So do the injuries suffered by students. The law cannot be seen to value one over the other. Those responsible, whoever they are, should be held accountable. But in a society where power is so unequally distributed, can we really expect institutions to act without fear or favor?

- AL Sharada

(The author is a sociologist and the director of Population First)