1. Freedom of Expression is not a priority for most Indians
2. There are simply not “enough of us” to make the government care
3. India has more important problems than Freedom of Expression
4. Our voice will never be heard

I hear statements like this all the time. And over the past five years or so, my rights to free expression in India have been steadily eroded. The recent IT amendments allow anyone to take down content if they find it “blasphemous” or “offensive”. We bloggers have not been silent  of course. We blogged about it. We’ve tweeted our hearts out. We’ve created Facebook pages and signed petitions.

But we have never… ever… made it an election issue.

Never once has anyone ever stood up and said “I will vote for the party that supports unqualified freedom of expression in India.” Note how many communities support freedom of expression as long as it is directed towards someone else. Recently, when Salman Rushdie was intimidated against visiting India and when the Jaipur literature festival wasn’t even allowed to have him on video conference, everyone seemed outraged. “Muslim fanatics are taking over the country!” “Freedom of expression is under attack!” Yet these same individuals lent their support to the thugs and goondas who hounded MF Husain out of the country for paintings that were “offensive to Hinduism”.

So I’ll just say what needs to be said. I will vote for the party which openly supports freedom of expression regardless of whom it offends.

I’m aware that my voice is small. I’m aware that I’m not a priority for politicians. But this is the least I can do. I have a voice – and I’m making use of it. By itself it will mean nothing. I know for a fact that many Indian bloggers agree with me. I have met several wonderful individuals who share my views on a wide range of topics ranging from equality of women, to freedom of expression. This interaction is made possible ONLY through the Internet. A medium which has no boundaries. For me, it goes much deeper than that. I rely on the Internet to earn my living.

I see no reason whatsoever why bloggers should not get together and vote as a bloc. But we must keep one thing in mind. We are INFLUENCERS. Our strength does not lie in numbers, but in AMPLIFICATION.

There are two examples of this. Remember the Nira Radia tapes? There was a complete media blackout of that whole affair. But the collective outrage of Internet citizens like us forced the media, the government, and the courts to sit up and take notice. More recently, Kapil Sibal’s idiotic statements about prescreening comments on social networks also drew our collective outrage. We forced him to take back what he said and the next time he will think twice before spouting such irresponsible nonsense.

In both cases, the absolute number of people engaged in discussing these issues was miniscule compared to the population of India. We didn’t organize any dharnas, strikes, or agitations. But we talked about them. We blogged about them. We tweeted and used hash tags. And we were noticed.

Bloggers, and Internet citizens need to take an electoral stand. For those of you who feel that there are more important parameters on which to choose a political party, consider this. There is no material difference between the Congress and the BJP. They have no economic ideology. Each repeats the actions of the other when they are elected.

“Freedom of Expression” on the other hand is an attitude. It implies tolerance. It implies open-mindedness. It implies maturity. Intelligence. Equality. Courage. It implies that one has control over one’s mind. Qualities that we as a people and our political class are sorely lacking in. Surely that is something worth voting for?

We need not have the numbers. We have the tools necessary to make our voice heard loud and clear. I repeat – our strength lies in AMPLIFICATION. For this reason, we cannot merely become “just another number”. For we will lose the numbers game. In terms of sheer votes amassed, we might not be able to match the traditional vote blocs. We cannot win a pure numbers game.

But here’s the secret – neither can the hardliners. THEIR power stems from being able to influence other people too. You really think those protesting against Salman Rushdie have even read his book? No. Someone else read it and told them how to react and how to behave. The hardliners also rely on amplification and not just numbers.

THIS is a battle we can win.

So how do we amplify our voice? We have to prevent ourselves from becoming “just another number”. For this reason, we avoid strategies which represent us as just “one more”. Such methods might leave you feeling satisfied that you done something, but I doubt if it’ll get us very far. Strategies like this include:

1. Creating a Facebook page and asking people to “like” it (just click the “like” button and you do your good deed for the day!)
2. Creating a petition asking people to sign it (I’ve never heard of anything come of these things)

Moves like the above reduce us to mere numbers. That’s not the game we want to play. In order to AMPLIFIED, we have to:

1. Blog about our support to a party that promises unrestricted Freedom of Expression
2. Post comments on articles, news items, and other blogs about this requirement
3. Post your preferences on your favorite social networks. Encourage your friends to share it
4. Use the #indiancensorship hash tag to consolidate our activity
5. Many people like my mother still share using e-mail. Make use of it to reach those who don’t use social networks.

There would probably be other innovative ways to amplify our voices. Remember the pink chaddi campaign and what a massive impact it had? That was because the act of physically sending a real world object has an impact which the virtual world can’t compare with. Perhaps we too need to send a fitting representation to our political leaders :)

It’s time we stood up to defend the medium we all use, love so much and take for granted every day. Who knows? We might even get the ball rolling towards finding a viable alternative to the Congress and the BJP! That would be a huge boost for our country.

So what do you think? Is it time for Indian Internet citizens to vote as a bloc and demand that our chosen candidate support unqualified Freedom of Expression in India and all that it implies?

Stunned over the miracle of the "Back" button

“It was a miracle”, he said visibly struggling to control his tears. “I just went back to the previous page – It was as if whatever I had been viewing simply… vanished! I never have to look at anything I dislike ever again.”

An emotional Vinay Rai later revealed to the media that for the past several years he had been forced to read whatever turned up on his browser screen simply because he didn’t know there was a back button. “It was horrible. You can’t imagine the pressure – the fear…I feel as if I’ve been liberated from a nightmare”, he said. “I never knew that you could simply… ignore the content on the page by pressing the back button. It’s like going back in time”, he said as a wide grin split his features. “I never have to live in perpetual fear of what’s going to show up in my browser!”

Asked about whether or not he would drop his case against Google and Facebook for objectionable, blasphemous content now that he knew he could merely navigate away, he said that naturally there was no need for concern anymore. “Of course I’ll drop my case. All this time I was angry because there was simply no way for me to know that I could shut out whatever I didn’t like. With this new ‘back button’ thing, I can finally take control of my life.”

But Vinay Rai isn’t done yet. His is a naturally generous and giving nature. He said he had several suggestions to browser makers. “The first thing to do is to make the ‘Back’ button more prominent”, he said. “I demand that browsers dedicate fully half the screen to a massive button displaying ‘Go back!’ in flashing red lights. It’s the only way to make sure that users get the concept of moving away from what they can’t bear to see.”

He also said he was starting an organization called the “Foundation for Awareness of the Back Button” (FABB) to educate those who might be in a plight similar to that of his own at the time. “I just know that there are millions out there like me – those who never understood the magic of what a ‘Back’ button can do. I want to spread the awareness.”

Asked about who he would educate, Vinay Rai said he had a long list to people, prominent among them being Kapil Sibal, the Darul Uloom Deoband, and a whole bunch of hardcore Hindutva types who objected to M F Hussain’s paintings. “I’m confident that these people have no idea that such an easy solution is available to them. I have to share in this fantastic discovery”, he said while hardly being able to sit still for excitement.

We’ve reached out to Google and Facebook for comment, but they seem to respond only in a state of stunned silence, mumbling something about “…only in India…”

I find this to be such a horrible travesty of the principles of justice, that I recoil in horror at the mere hint of such thinking. The implications are so grotesque, I cannot seriously believe that any intelligent person supports it after thinking it through to its very end.

Astute readers will realize of course that in reality, women are raped because they are vulnerable – not because they “dress provocatively”. But to me, that is irrelevant. In a free country, a woman should have the right to dress however she wants with whatever intention – even if it is to provoke. In other words, even a complete slut should never have to “share the responsibility” for her rape. Just like an artist should have the right to paint whatever they want no matter how offensive it seems to other people without the fear of physical retaliation.

Arguments like this showcase a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of justifiable reaction. While arguing with a blogger over this, this was my response:

It’s a well-established principle of jurisprudence, that the reaction to something must be concomitant with the action. In other words, if I prick you with a pin, you have no business retaliating with a grenade launch. If you DO throw a bomb at me for pricking you with a pin, you will find very little sympathy by claiming to be “provoked” by me. You will be rightly punished and condemned for doing so without an ounce of leniency.

And this is why your claim that a woman holds responsibility for her rape is so utterly hollow. No woman, or indeed no person, can share the responsibility for the reaction that is so outrageously disproportionate to the action. The act of physically violating a woman is so ludicrously out of whack with the “provocation”, that I have difficulty believing whether you’re actually serious or not. But based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you are indeed serious.

I hope you can see now how illogical your stand is and how grotesquely it mutilates the very concept of fairness and justice.

And for the benefit of those who “just don’t get it”, here is why physically violating a woman can never be a justifiable reaction to her dressing – no matter how provocative it is.

Let’s assume that the woman by her skimpy dress, has “provoked” you (Apparently this happens to some men, though never to me, and never to any friends of mine. But it seems there are some semi-animals among us who think otherwise). If you view this provocation as an attack upon you, what responses are comparable to the provocation? Let’s see, you can (surprise) WALK AWAY! In other words, you have the power to distance yourself from the “provocation” and from the “harm” that you perceive. It is entirely within your power to remove the source of your affliction. On the other hand, you can retaliate in kind. You can wear whatever sexually provocative dress YOU want to wear and repay her in the same way! If worse comes to worst, you can simply be rude to her, ignore etc. ( though that kind of makes you a jerk). Bottom line: all of these reactions are in some way comparable to the “offense” that she has given you by her clothing.

But when you touch her without her permission, molest her physically, or try and rape her, you cross a line. You cross that line whenever you turn physical. And why is physical retaliation “crossing the line”? Because unlike mere “provocation”, one cannot just walk away from a physical assault. So while every single man on the planet has the capability to distance himself either physically or mentally from the “provocation” of a woman because of her dress, a woman – or anyone for that matter – doesn’t have the same freedom in the case of a physical transgression.

So I hope you understand this now. Why no woman can ever be accused of “sharing responsibility” for her rape. It’s because rape and molestation are physical attacks which a person cannot simply walk away from unlike any other imagined offense in your head she may have given you.

So can we please STOP with this “she asked for it” and “it’s her fault” bullshit now?

It seems a part of established custom that a man provide child support for his own offspring until they are adults. This makes sense – no mother should have to ever raise a child on her own when the man was equally responsible. But then I thought, what if the man never wanted a child in the first place? It seemed unfair to me that the woman at any time can decide to abdicate responsibility as a parent either by having an abortion, or by giving the child up for adoption. The man however, has no say in the matter at all after the woman is pregnant – a detail which can ruin his life.

I began searching around, and came across this article in “The Time” magazine regarding a man’s right to choose. Here is the case that exemplifies the problem:

Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, was ordered to pay child support after his former girlfriend had a baby. He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn’t get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition. When she did get pregnant, he argues, she could have chosen to have an abortion. So shouldn’t he have a choice as well, about whether to support a child he never wanted to have?

Edit: I should note that the girl in this case openly admitted that the guy never wanted children and that she told him that she couldn’t get pregnant. The law is such that it’s irrelevant. The father is expected to pay child support regardless of intentions and protective measures.

Now I’m aware that a large number of cases where the father is ordered to pay child support deals with irresponsible behavior on the part of the man. Casually having sex, impregnating a woman and leaving is deplorable and I’m not saying there should be no consequences for the man whatsoever.

But laws are made for all people and for all situations. You cannot have a law that is unfair to even a small segment of the population. This is why well-written laws are replete with exceptions, and special situations which narrow down the scope and target only those whom it is meant to address. Having a blanket rule saying that all men should always pay child support for every child they have regardless of the situation is not a good law. Because it ignores situations where the child was truly “accidental” in spite of all precautions to the contrary.

As an aside, this is also why I’m against the draconian “dowry laws” in India. Many have said that the abuse of such laws is restricted to only a small segment of the population and since it benefits the overwhelmingly large percentage of women, the law should not be changed. In my opinion this is extremely myopic, unfair, and hurtful. We have the principle of equality before the law and the ideal of justice for everyone. Not merely justice for the majority. We should not tolerate a law which ignores even a small segment of people and is blatantly unjust to them.

Coming back, there’s no doubting that it is the woman who has to bear the direct consequences of pregnancy. I am in no way suggesting that the man should have veto rights over her decision to keep the child or not. It’s unthinkable that the law should force women to either abort or keep the baby under any circumstances.

I am saying however, that the man should have at least some rights over his legal parenthood. I’m not advocating a complete abdication of responsibility here. I would be in favor of the man paying the woman some form of compensation for an abortion since she is the one undergoing the mental and physical trauma. What I am not in favor of however, is equating a woman’s discomfort with an abortion to a man having to pay child support for the next 18 to 21 years of his life. The latter is more severe than the former.

We can go one step further. It’s possible that a woman doesn’t like the idea of an abortion. That it’s too mentally and physically exhausting. In this case, I think both the man and the woman should be able to decide whether or not they wish to give the child up for adoption. According to the law today, only a woman can make the decision to give the baby up for adoption. But once the child is born, doesn’t the father have equal rights to the hilt? I feel that the man should also have the capability to do the same. If the mother wants to keep the child, then she should have to pay for that luxury. Again, I’m in favor of the man providing a form of one-time compensation to the woman for all the inconvenience and trauma the mother undergoes.

As it stands right now, a man can only have sex if he is prepared to pay child support for the next 18 years if the woman decides to keep the baby. A woman on the other hand, can have sex in the full knowledge that she has a way out and that she never has to ruin her life to deal with a baby she never planned for. In legal principle therefore, a man can never have sex merely for pleasure alone. A woman can.

For example, my wife and I have decided never to have children. If however she gets accidentally pregnant one day and refuses to abort, I have no say in the matter whatsoever! I’m forced to be a father despite my wishes and am forced to pay through the nose – again despite my wishes. This ruins my life, my plans, and everything that I hoped for. Whereas my wife doesn’t have to live with the same burden.

Is this fair? Do you feel that Matt Dubay was unfairly treated in the example above?

100 Years of Solitude by Gabriel García Márquez

For me however, the take away from this awesome read was very different. The novel starts with the founding of a town called “Macondo” built largely by the energetic, enterprising and highly intelligent Jose Arcadio Buendia in a forgotten swampland. In the beginning, we think he’s something of a madman and a wastrel. It becomes increasingly clear however that Jose Arcadio Buendia is a rare genius. One who gives himself selflessly to the building of the village. His wife Ursula is a perfect match for him as she deftly manages a household brimming with people, relatives and does so with aplomb. Her integrity and strength of character is apparent throughout the novel.

But nothing can stop the ravages of time. Not even Ursula. Jose Arcadio Buendia goes insane and his like will never be seen in the village again. Several of his descendents seem to have something of his qualities, but none of them quite match up. Ursula herself fights a heroic battle against age and the changing times. In fact, the history of the Buendia family is the history of the town itself. We see the brutal effects of war, and how in spite of ideological differences both sides of the conflict come to look increasingly the same. We observe the devastating effects of “corporatization” of the village and how it strips the town of its humanity.

With each successive generation, I keep hoping that the glory days of the village would somehow return. That the latest descendent, the latest mother, or the newest arrival would be a worthy successor to the indefatigable Jose Arcadio Buendia and his wife Ursula. But it never happens. Either due to a flaw in the character, or because of some personal tragedy, no one is able to be the pillar of strength and the rallying point for a revival of the doomed town of Macondo.

In the end, there is no one left. No one who has in their memory the bustling, productive and startlingly fresh atmosphere of either the town, or its most prominent family. No one remembers Ursula or indeed Jose Arcadio Buendia himself. The grand house which Ursula herself built room by room with love and care decays, and no one is able to stop it – and no one cares too much either.

Can land possess memories? Does it maintain a record of happier times? We would certainly like to think so, but I suspect it doesn’t. The past is past, and there is no going back. Good times come to an end and no one remembers them. It’s heartbreaking to see the downfall of a town when no one remembers what it used to be like. So much tragedy, so much happiness, so many births, so many loves, so much… personality lost forever.

I realize that this tragedy plays itself out every single day, with every single family. We all remember “golden days” in the past and are filled with nostalgia. It is our cause and our cross to bear. Often however, the future becomes better. But this happy ending was denied to the town of Macondo and it was destroyed in the end by nature itself.

What about that land now? Does it still retain the echoes of laughter, and does it remember the energetic exertions of Jose Arcadio Buendia and the tireless efforts of Ursula, and their children, grandchildren, and great great-grandchildren? The answer unfortunately is “probably not”. For every one word of history written down, thousands upon thousands are lost forever. Everything decays, everything is forgotten. And one day when humanity itself comes to an end… who will remember us?

Does anyone care about the true wellbeing of the girl?

The poll wasn’t to judge whether or not underage consensual sex should be legalized, but to find out whether people believed that marriage was a way of excusing the act of rape. Four out of five questions related to whether or not a boy should be let off if he consented to marry the girl he just raped. Now I understand that this is merely a poll, but it still bothered me. The very idea that a man agreeing to marry the woman he raped somehow excuses this crime is offensive to me. It’s not difficult to understand why. But just to be clear, here are my reasons in no particular order.

1. It propagates the view that marriage is punishment

Our system of justice is predicated on a person facing negative consequences for a crime. This is why different kinds have varying prison sentences. The very worst crimes however received the death penalty. The message is clear – the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment.

So what do you think it signifies when a judge, the courts, or even the law itself contemplate letting a rapist off if he “agrees” to marry the victim? It doesn’t take a genius to make the connection that marriage is viewed as a punishment for the man and as a “compensation” or “reward” for the victim. As if the sole aim of a woman’s life is to “trick” the guy into marriage and rape gives the perfect excuse!

2. A woman’s life is “ruined” after rape or sex

There are actually two problems here. One, it assumes that a woman’s marital prospects are entirely spoiled after she’s been raped, or she’s had sex. A corollary here is that every man is assumed to want a “virgin” bride for himself and the absence of virginity is a complete dealbreaker for him. Such a view is actually offensive to a man like me because it insults my intelligence and assumes that I’m a shallow and prejudiced individual.

The second problem is assuming that without marriage, a woman’s life is worthless. As if the sole aim and purpose of the existence of a human female is to attach themselves and “capture” an unsuspecting male by dangling the promise of their virginity in front of them. How can someone know that they think like this and not feel sickened? Or is it just that all of this thinking is below the surface and people are not really conscious about how they feel?

3. No one ever asks if the girl wants to marry her rapist!

To me, this is got to be the most outrageous assumption in this whole mess. Just look at the questions that are asked in the poll:

• Should it cease to be rape if the boy agrees to marry the girl?
• If the boy is underage and therefore cannot legally marry the girl, should he be booked for rape?
• Should the law agree that it is not rape if he swears that he will marry her at the age of 18?

Do you sense something blatantly wrong with these questions? None of them seem to pay any heed to the wishes of the girl in this matter. They all revolve around whether or not the guy agrees to accept the girl in marriage as a punishment for his crime. As if it’s a foregone conclusion that any woman who’s raped would jump at the opportunity to marry her rapist. It’s almost as if she was waiting for this! Waiting for some excuse – any excuse – to “trap” a man into marrying her and that she should be happy she got anyone at all.

4. If a man wants to marry a girl, he simply has to rape her!

This one is pretty self-explanatory. There’s no question that introducing rules providing a laxity in punishment if the man “agrees” to marry the woman cannot but encourage the rape of women by men who wish to marry her by force. This consequence is so clear to me, but I’m astounded how a newspaper like the TOI can even question people about these things.

I’m not a woman, but my blood boils at the implied assumptions underlying all of this. That people can have such a low opinion of both men and women – and by extension, myself – irritates me no end. What makes it even worse is when the law itself extends tacit support to this kind of primitive, medieval thinking.

There are a lot of people who feel that the law must reflect “society’s” views. This is simply untrue. The law is expected to strive towards the ideals enshrined in our Constitution. This is why homosexuality was decriminalized in India even though the majority of people didn’t like it. This is why the law doesn’t criminalize live-in relationships even though they face the overwhelming disapproval of that unthinking mass we call “society”. Whenever there is a conflict between the law and what the majority of people feel or think, the law must do what is right. In this case, there is no doubt whatsoever about what is right and what is wrong. Rape is a crime. Marriage is not a punishment. A woman is not an object to be bartered or sold off. And it is not the be-all and end-all of woman’s life to get married.

Mind you, I have no objection whatsoever if the victim and the rapist agree of their own free will to get married provided they’re both adults. What I object to is marriage as a substitute for punishment. So let the pair get married. But it shouldn’t mitigate the punishment or jail time in any manner whatsoever. The rapist still has to go to jail and he still has to pay for his crime – married or not.

How long can you keep this up?

Conclusion? Hold on to those hateful feelings!

Now I don’t know about you, but I find it very emotionally stressful to continue holding resentment close to my heart. The number of times my wife and I have fought, would be enough – if I were to so choose – to fuel a lifetime of grudges. Instead, I find the “forgive and forget” attitude much more beneficial. However, it is indeed true that sometimes I would have benefited had not forgiven so easily. In fact, this attitude of mine puts me at a great disadvantage! I’ve often felt that such battles are won by the person who has the greater capacity for holding onto their anger.

What does this mean? Does it indicate a weak sense of will on my part? Perhaps it merely indicates that I’m unwilling to put up with discomfort for a prolonged period of time and that I find my peace of mind too valuable to waste. Whatever the practical disadvantages, I feel that the state of mind which exists in a person who easily forgives is in general more relaxed than a person who does not.

Sometimes however, I can hold a grudge by forgetting about the other person entirely. As long as they don’t come near me, have contact with me, or affect my life in any way, I can just wipe them out of my private existence. But being constantly exposed to such individuals is extremely taxing on my physiology.

My blood pressure rises, I can almost feel my adrenaline glands pumping out their enervating essences, my heart rate increases, and my breathing is uneven. This isn’t a state which can continue for long, and I don’t believe it’s healthy either. How fortunate for me therefore, that I’m able to live a lifestyle where I have almost complete control over whom I meet and choose to interact with! It means that my primary task is to maintain a state of harmony with my wife. Everyone else is inconsequential.

I crave a peaceful life. Not everyone does. I must be one of the few persons in this world who is living a life almost in complete harmony with their character. But what about others? How do they handle the necessity of exposing themselves to people whom they dislike, or hold a grudge against? Perhaps they’re able to “box away” their feelings when the time comes to interact with these people. Some survival mechanism is surely necessary. Or perhaps it’s just not too much of a big deal for most. Maybe I’m just overly sensitive.

Either way, I’m pretty grateful for the way things are :) . What about you?

Dump in Trash = Censorship?

I’m not against private discretion where people have the right to publish or not to publish anything in their personal space. Every newspaper for example has its own philosophy. The Times of India, is an openly liberal newspaper. They’re also a private company. As such, they have the right to print or not to print anything they like and it wouldn’t be censorship. Those who say that newspapers have a “social responsibility” to publish “just the facts” and to treat all facts equally are simply wrong. Such rules exist only in their own minds.

Similarly, blog owners have every right to allow or disallow certain comments on their blogs – or indeed “prescreen” comments outright. After all, we own our blogs. Our blogs are our private space on the Internet. It’s up to us to decide what kind of experience we want to offer to our readers. If that includes a non-abusive comments section, then that is our prerogative. Equally, a blog owner has every right to NOT moderate comments – though personally I prefer to visit only those blogs which have a certain level of moderation by the author. I expect the blog owner to keep the discussion clean, but that is their choice. If I find the blog owner is not willing to take any interest in promoting a healthy and name-calling free debate, I simply don’t visit that blog anymore.

Look at it another way. When someone comes to your house, you expect them to behave with a certain amount of decency. This is not to mean that they have to agree with everything you say, but etiquette demands that they don’t do something egregious like peeing on your carpet! If you find their behavior obnoxious, you have every right to eject them from your house. This doesn’t mean that you’re “impinging on their freedom”. It simply means that you expect them to behave when they’re in your house. However, no one is preventing them from going to their own house and peeing on the carpet to their heart’s content!

So is the moderation of comments on the blog censorship? No, it isn’t. Censorship relates to the stifling of speech by the government. Demanding decent behavior when a guest is on your property on the other hand is merely an extension of your property rights. No one has unlimited freedom on another person’s private space.

1. Websites are Private Property. No one forces you to visit one

Kapil Sibal and others seem to liken the Internet to a public road where someone is standing on a podium hurling obscenities. This is a laughable error. On a road, the passerbys have no choice but to listen to something offensive. Loudspeakers don’t require the permission of the listeners to get their message through. So if someone wants to avoid them, they have no choice. This is why there should be restrictions on what people can just stand up and shout in public. Because no one is obligated to listen to anyone else.

The Internet however, is totally different. Every single website on the planet is owned by someone. Is paid for by someone or the other. This blog which you’re reading is mine. It’s not public property. You’re reading this as a guest in my personal space. You choose to come here. I didn’t force you.

So if you get offended by something I write,  just bloody leave. I promise my website won’t follow you. You have complete freedom to shut yourself off from offensive content. Unlike a public speech on the road, you make the choice to get offended.

If you see a Facebook page saying “I hate Muslims”, it’s not going to carry speeches from Vivekananda! You jolly well know what’s inside. If you still go in, read something and get offended, it’s your own fault. Don’t blame the creators of the content. It’s their page. You are a guest.

Let’s make this even more clear. If you deliberately go touch a hot stove and get burned, do you blame yourself or the stove? If you go to a house and see a box saying “if you open this, you will get hurt” and you open it, whom do you blame? Similarly, when someone sends you a link via email which says “OMG this will totally piss you off!” and you click on that link, guess who’s fault it is?

Yep that’s right – you. You’re an adult. Take responsibility for your actions. You type a URL, you choose to take the risk of getting offended. Your fingers click a link, it’s your job to respect the rights of the owner of that website. It’s their home. You are a guest. You don’t choose to go into someone else’s house and demand that they change the layout of their furniture.

2. We’re not “your people”, you pompous prick

Sibal’s quote saying “We have to take care of the sensibility of our people” is so outrageous, I’m shocked no one has objected to it so far.

Dear Kapil, listen to me loud and clear. You’re a politician – not fucking Moses! You are our servant. We’re not “your people”. We don’t belong to you. You’re not the caretacker of our sensibilities. You’re not our father, mother or guardian. You no right to speak for “our sensibilities”.

I’ve always had a problem with the phrase “ruling party”. India is not a monarchy where people “rule”. Parties are allowed to govern for a time – and that’s it. But in India we still look upon politicians as kings, which is why they can get away with horrific statements talking about “their people”.

So Sibal, mind your own business. We can take care of our sensibilities well enough. It’s not your job to look out for the adults of India.

As long as comments posted on the Internet are on private websites which people choose to go to, there should be no restriction on anything. Even hate speech should be allowed. Web users are smart enough to punish a website by not visiting it. We’re not drawn on strings towards hateful content.

Look at Wikipedia. It’s run entirely by the users. The government has no say in what’s put up on Wikipedia. Editors are regular people. And look at the quality! Does Sibal think the government could have done any better? Ordinary people are not stupid. We know what is offensive content and how to deal with it. We all see the “flag as offensive” buttons and we make the choice to click it or not. You’re not welcome to make that choice for us.

Apparently you have a problem with a Facebook page showing morphed pictures of Sonia Gandhi. Did you know that it would offend you even before you saw it? Yes you did – because someone would have shown you the link. Why did you open that link if you knew it would offend you? You chose to get offended. And you dare blame the creators of the site?

Just because you’re a child doesn’t mean that the rest of us don’t know how to take responsibility for our actions. So please don’t project your juvenile behavior on to the rest of us.