RSS-Rahul lawsuit belongs to the gutter
The RSS versus Rahul Gandhi defamation case, like all political defamation cases, belongs to the gutter.
Its sensationalisation is entertainment. Politicians are Janus-faced saying different things at different times for different things. Compared to the Sangh Parivar, Rahul Gandhi is a cub among jackals, trying to build an image to fight the dragon in the form of a Prime Minister who flies into the skies leaving his ground support to attack the "cub".
To the aid of the "cub" comes his distinguished lawyer, Kapil Sibal, who treats this as an "honour" case which the RSS, acting as its own panchayat, has propelled into criminal defamation proceedings to create an ideological fight between true Hindus and usurper Hindus.
Usurper
Going by the fashion of the day, the "usurper" RSS Hindus are well known for their khaki shorts, the costume of European fascists after World War I. In 2016, the half-pant brigade has opted for full trousers to cover their knobby knees and, no doubt, declare their virtue.
Many Hindus and minorities are scared of the RSS, Bajrang Dal and related organisations. This scare is well founded. Someone, whether in an individual or collective capacity burnt the Staines family alive, invaded the Bhandarkar institute, smashed paintings and harassed Husain by criminal litigation even though Husain made apologies that he did not mean to offend anyone’s feelings.
You cannot really blame people for fearing the RSS. If the RSS wants to gain credibility, it is for them to conciliate not terrorise those who fear them. Like gods and goddesses, the RSS has two faces: the "demonic" which people fear and the "socio-political" which, too, is a force to be reckoned with.
The BJP-RSS-Hindutva conglomerate declares vikas as its election agenda. But, Hindutva is not far behind its own agenda.
Evangelical Hindus emerge with nonsensical strategies like ghar wapsi and oppress Dalits to death in the name of the cow. If you displease the Sangh Parivar, they will be displeased with you. If you get angry, they will get angry with you. If you harm their deputation, they will campaign, intimidate you and file defamation cases against you. This is their understanding of political discourse.
 |
| The BJP-RSS-Hindutva conglomerate declares "vikas" as its election agenda. But, Hindutva is not far behind its own agenda. |
BJP spokesman Shahnawaz Husain says “Rahul is a waste of time… One should not pay heed to what he says”. Then why have Rajesh Mahadev Kunte and others filed a defamation case against him? Treat Rahul with disdain, push the controversy into the public domain. Contradict Rahul. Tell the people he is wrong. Bare all the facts. Tear down the lies.
Such cases are called “Slapp” cases (strategic litigation against public participation) to muzzle opinions. Don’t scare people. Fight it out in the market place of ideas to which you have access. But that would not achieve the RSS’s ambitions to terrorise anything said about them, including by litigation.
Defamation
The Supreme Court is in a jam because at one stage, it seemed, Justice Dipak Misra wanted to decriminalise defamation. During the hearing, Misra and Pant JJ in the Subramanian Swamy case (2016) opted for criminalisation with safeguards.
This "safeguard" aspect has been abandoned. It is a free for all. But let us look at the case. Who is Rajesh Mahadev Kunte?
Prima facie, defamation is against harm to the reputation of a person. (Section 499). True, explanation 2 enlarges defamation to cover “a company or an association of collections of persons”. Explanation 3 says irony may be defamatory. But explanation 4 treats as defamatory imputations which directly or indirectly lower the moral and intellectual character.
Equally, unfortunately, defamation includes “slander”- things spoken on the spur of the moment. Here, too, context becomes important. Given this, I am sure India’s populace commits defamation every time they say "s__h" and add abuses to it. Is the message prosecute them? But there are other aspects.
Exception
The first exception allows truth for public interest. Exception 3 allows “good faith” opinions on "any public question” in relation to some conduct. Most important is Exception 9 which allows good imputations for the public good. Clearly this statute drafted in 1837 belongs to a different era, not to suppress speech and foment tension under a constitution.
The exceptions come into play at trial. But look at it as a whole. Rahul Gandhi was expressing a bona fide opinion in an off-the cuff public speech on a public issue for the public good.
He warns people of the RSS whom he believes were responsible for being behind the bullet that killed Mahatma Gandhi. We are not revisiting the murder case or Justice Kapur’s report, but considering whether Rahul’s belief was bona fide. By the way, I, too, nurture the view that the RSS was "directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of the Mahatma". This is a public issue for public debate after 68 years.
Ultimately, the question is what kind of public discourse do we want on public issues. Criminal intimidation or reasoned interplay of exchange of ideas? This is the issue for an independent India seeking democracy in action.
The RSS-Rahul case is an expensive farce. Public issues should be thrashed out in the public domain.