Readers Write 1.0 Vs. 2.0

by Som Vishwakarma
USA

March 14, 2006

I have had the privilege of reading plenty of intelligent and interesting articles in the PD readers write forum. But there is difference between the PD version 1.0 (before the February shutdown) and version 2.0 (from March 01 onwards). While I respect the PD editor’s decision to moderate the readers write section, I don’t think that the decision to moderate free speech is a black and white one. More so since India in general and Bihar in particular has a long way to go before we can provide for our citizens, and the right to free speech is a necessary tool in this endeavor.

A few writers are feeling that their creativity is being stifled by rules and boundaries. All of us have different personalities. Some of us have a ‘please them all’ nature. We don’t give much thought to controversial topics and so we don’t even notice the difference between PD version 1.0 and 2.0. Many of us have a personality that questions all the current beliefs and loves controversy. Those of us who fall in this category are the ones who feel most bogged down by the rules. We find an enormous difference between PD version 1.0 and 2.0.

Most of us are somewhere in the middle, we recognize controversial topics but we don’t write about them. We do this for the following reasons: a) we don’t value the topic enough to defend it, b) we don’t want to hurt other people even though we think that these people are living in denial c) we appreciate the other party’s point of view and hence don’t want to push a controversial topic down their throat, d) we don’t profit from taking a stand so we don’t care about a topic. Only a few of us are mature and bold enough to criticize something that is wrong and at the same time take criticism directed at us.

In my humble opinion, in the long run, giving an artist or a writer unlimited freedom is better than limiting artistic freedom. Historically people who have contributed the most to the advancement and progress of our society are the ones who were the most controversial. The list is endless, Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Mandela, Vivekananda, Martin Luther King, Plato, Copernicus et cetera. Each of these people talked about the topics that were taboo during their times. But the catch here is that when these people made the bold statements, very few people knew the true meaning of what was being said. Each time these esteemed people wanted to speak, the establishment wanted to control their speech to maintain order and the current way of life. This is the reason why western democracies give so much value to free speech.

But giving unlimited freedom to writers and artists is a tough decision. There is always rule of law (especially so in a democracy) and consideration toward fellow citizens (especially so when we know that the fellow citizens are themselves good, rational people) that needs to be respected. Also, certain people have malicious intent and they try to take advantage of the freedom.

In closing, I will like to suggest the following to the PD editors: It is a fact that certain people find certain topics taboo and certain people want to write about these topics. Similar to the ‘Politics’ and ‘Sports’ sections, can PD create one more section under the readers write column and call it ‘taboo topics’? At the discretion of the PD editors, the controversial topics will be posted under this heading. Readers will be asked to register and login to access the contents. A disclaimer will be put next to the login screen, warning that some of the content can be harmful to certain people so please enter at your own risk.
 

Return to previous Page