Right Wing, Free Speech, Prithviraj Chauhan and Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case

Chetan Chauhan who passed away a couple of days back was a steely, gritty batsman who never shirked from facing fast and aggressive bowlers. His duel with Jeff Thomson in Australia 1978 is a legend in itself. Yet there was a time when he apparently let go of his emotions. Kapil Dev recollects an encounter with Chetan Chauhan after he bowled bouncers one too many at the West Indies in their series in late 1978. Chetan’s reaction was apparently, Kapil can bowl his bouncers, but when it comes to the opposition, it is he (Chetan) as an opening batsman who has to face the counter-attack. Implied was boucers would invite retribution which not Kapil but Chetan would have to face. This was perhaps an emotional reaction given that it was the first time that India had a fast bowler in forty plus years and a fast bowler who would not hesitate to go at the opposition in full throttle.

This thought came to the mind when reading the reactions of some celebrity right-wingers when they seem to rail against the Supreme Court decision on the Prashant Bhushan contempt case. One reaction went like this. The contempt law does give a wide latitude to the Supreme Court. The law can be used against anyone remotely criticising Supreme Court. If and when Justice Chandrachud becomes Chief Justice, he could very well use the same against the right wing on a scale. Therefore, the contempt law must be curbed. Among the right wing circles in India, Justice Chandrachud is generally perceived to be in alignment with the left liberal interests. It is different matter, he is widely rumoured to have authored the Ayodhya judgment. Besides, it is believed that his cross questioning of the Muslim arguments tilted the scales in the Ayodhya case. But what is pertinent is the right wing reaction or at least in some quarters is about going after the contempt in the presumption that they might be a victim in the future.

Another set of right wing reactions bordered on their avowed professing of right to free speech. Implied was their belief in free speech absolutism. There is no doubt that free speech absolutism is essential. Yet in the US, where the First Amendment protects free speech, it arose in very different and unique circumstances. The difference between a public and private conversation is virtually nil in the United States. Yet in India, the conditions are far from different. It pays perhaps to suggest normative solutions or beliefs, but ground realities are too complex for free speech in absolute form to enter into the public sphere. Secondly, irrespective of the beliefs in the free speech absolutism, current laws do not subscribe to the same. The First Amendment in India which places free speech into a domain of practice with reasonable restrictions, might have evolved in perhaps ridiculous circumstances, but the fact remains, the law exists.

Until the law exists, the law will continue to be used. The state has tremendous power at its disposal and is something critical in certain circumstances. The difference between democracy and dictatorship lies in the use of these powers. In democracy they are used sparingly while in the autocracy, its use is daily routine to keep the potential dissidence under check. In the application of the contempt law to Prashant Bhushan, the tweets cherry picked up might hardly call for contempt and at best could have been ignored. Yet the history of Prashant Bhushan cannot be ignored. It was not for the first time that he had sought to undermine the Supreme Court when it refused to do his bidding. He has had a long history and in fact, a contempt petition has been pending against him halfway since 2012. He had continuously mocked at the Supreme Court. All that was needed for the Court was to pick up a couple of instances to go at him. In some ways he was given a long rope and pulled over when he seemingly thought he could get away with it. There need not be warnings just the history was sufficient.

The right wing free speech absolutists might have a point but they also have to factor in they are in a midst of a civilizational war which itself is a continuum. They suffer from what one can term as Prithviraj Chauhan syndrome. Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Muhammad Ghori but each he defeated him, he forgave him and let him return with due honours. He was perhaps a rule based game of his era. Yet when finally faced a defeat at Tarain in 1192, Ghori hardly reciprocated. Prithviraj was taken prisoner to Kabul, blinded and tortured. Ghori was acting to his rules. This is what the issue that affects the right wingers is. Their revealed preference in their private lives might itself be different but they demonstrate their stated preferences towards being a statesmen of sorts in the public domain. In war and love, everything is fair. In the Mahabharata, there is hardly a Kaurava character who is not killed at Kurukshetra without a resort to deceit. The war was a classic illustration of realpolitik. The contempt case in the Supreme Court on Prashant Bhushan is a manifestation of the realpolitik.

It would be pertinent at this time to recollect, the laws restricting free speech as also contempt of courts have been framed by the Nehruvian liberal ecosystem. it is just that they are being given a taste of their own medicine. They believed that these laws could be used against those who oppose their agenda for deracination of the Indian mind. The forum shopping was amply evident on multiple occasions. The current round is where the tables have been turned against them. Their belief that they are alone have a right to free speech and expression and thus ‘some animals are more equal than other animals’. Therefore, in this battle, free speech gains only when each side realises that they too could be at the receiving end. For long, it is only group that has been receiving end.

The right wing must realise that while their goals of free speech absolutism are laudable and desirable, they cannot succeed in enforcing the same if only side believes it. The dominant strategy for the liberal system is always targeting the right wing advocates on smallest of the infringements since they would be well aware that right wing would not react given its professed belief in free speech absolutism. The end result would be the death of right wing as also free speech. As Savarkar pointed out, all the Muslims needed to do was use cows as shields against the Hindus. The Hindus cannot kill a cow, therefore, they lay down their arms or retreat allowing Muslims to run them over. Hindu men are killed, women raped, children sold in slave markets while cows killed with beef being the delicacy in the celebration of the conquest. The right wing’s arguments too mirror in a similar fashion.

Irrespective of the reservations on the contempt act, it must be recognized that the liberal system can be defeated only through the mechanisms they themselves perfected in their quest for dominance. Prithviraj Chauhan’s mistakes need not be repeated. The judicial games have not be a forte for the right wing that owes its ascendancy to the emergence of social media. Yet without forum shopping on convenient grounds, it is not possible to lay to rest the ghosts of the Nehruvian ecosystem. The political victories are means to an end and not an end  in itself. As this past post argued, there must be sheer willingness to resort to tools perhaps individually unacceptable but necessary evil for group protection. Therefore, the sooner RW realises the same, the better it would be.