Philosopher's Haze

Jay Leno is one of the most well-known comedians in North America, taking to the stage weeknights with his Tonight Show. As other late night comedians, be it David Letterman, Conan O’Brien or Craig Ferguson, Leno begins his show with a monologue in which he comments on current events as a way of warming people up and getting them into a good mood for when he brings out his guests. But here is the thing with comedy: if you are a comedian performing in front of any number of people at all, then there is a very good possibility that you will end up offending somebody during your act. This is inevitable when it comes to comedy: lots of people will laugh, some people will find the act to just be not funny, will still others will become offended by what you have said. It would seem that Leno is on a roll, having offended sikhs, Indians and roman catholics within the span of a single week.

While I could devote some time in this post to the problems that at least some roman catholics have with the joke made by Leno, I am taking a break from the catholics today: I know there will be something about them in the news that I can discuss next time. This post will be concerned directly with Leno’s comments about the sikh Golden Palace, as well as with the reactions from sikhs and the hypocritical, fascist-like government of India.

Indians and Sikhs Offended

On January 19 of this year, Leno showed a picture of the sikh Golden Temple and then commented on how this is the summer home of Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate. ABC News reports that in reaction to Leno’s comments a Facebook group was started, titled Boycott Jay Leno. Leno also peeved California resident Dr. Randeep Dhillon, who is suing Leno for what he is deeming the encouragement of ridicule and hatred of his religion, according to TMZ.com. Leno also drew attention from Indian nationals, including visiting NRI affairs minister Vayalar Ravi, who spoke with reporters in India about Leno’s comments (The Telegrapgh, India):

It is quite unfortunate and quite objectionable that such a comment has been made after showing the… Golden Temple… The Golden Temple is the Sikh community’s most sacred place. Even our Prime Minister went there for praying in the New Year. … The American government should also look at this kind of thing. …Freedom does not mean hurt the sentiments of others.… This is not acceptable to us and we take a very strong objection for such a display of an important place like the Golden Temple.

The Telegraph goes on to note that Ravi has directed this issue to the Indian State Department, while foreign minister S.M. Krishna is quoted as referring to the shows as ‘flippant’ and that shows like Leno’s must be “…extremely sensitive to the sensitivities of religious group(s)” within their country and outside.”

What it Means

Certain sikhs and members of the Indian Government are outraged by the comments Leno made with respect to the Golden Palace. One has gone to the extent of suing Leno while the Indian Government is calling for the censorship of the media in America and, presumably, anywhere else anyone might have the inclination make jokes that in any way come at the expense of a belief or principle that someone holds dearly. We can’t have people being offended, especially the Indian Government. After all, India is an oasis of mutual respect and tolerance between people regardless of their differences, right?

The answer to that question is “no”. India is responsible for some of the most egregious human rights violations in the world, where people to this day are subjected to social alienation and forced to live in poverty because of the religious beliefs of some hindus in that country. India wants individuals in other countries to respect their desire to not be offended for religious reasons and to have their governments ensure citizens do not violate this principle. Well as it happens, I am fucking disgusted by the way the Indian Government treats and allows its citizens to be treated – these should, because of the systemic manner in which they happen, be considered crimes against humanity. Let’s explore some of the ways in which the Indian Government, directly or indirectly, pisses on the rights and dignity of its citizens.

The purpose of this: to show that India is grossly hypocritical on issues of human rights and has absolutely no business telling anyone how they ought to be respecting the rights of individuals and groups.Taking advice on respecting human rights from India is not unlike asking Darth Vader for parenting or spousal advice: a really bad idea…perhaps even an exercise in futility.

Persecution in India

Before I continue any further, I would like to provide you with a number of links I have consulted while writing this post. While not all sources of information will actually be used in this post, they are all relevant to understanding the issues I am about to discuss:

• http://www.ielrc.org/content/w0103.pdf
• http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/INIndex.aspx
• http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/india?id=1011170
• http://www.rediff.com/news/column/indias-very-own-blasphemy-law/20110321.htm
• http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110112/jsp/opinion/story_13426168.jsp
• http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/23/india-disappointing-year-human-rights
• http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/07/20/schools-and-armed-conflict-0
• http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/countries-should-protect-human-rights-india_753996.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084101/Lalita-Tati-murder-Indian-girl-7-liver-cut-sacrifice-pictured.html
• http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/news/indian-farmers-sacrifice-girl-for-good-harvest-report/
• http://www.sikhcoalition.org/HumanRights.asp
• http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-010-2012
• http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-STM-014-2012
• http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/resources/hr_instrument.htm
• http://www.sit.edu/studyabroad/ssa_inh.cfm
• http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-25/india/30319980_1_chogm-commonwealth-summit-countries
• http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2832288.ece
• http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2817926.ece?homepage=true
• http://indiankanoon.org/doc/12704/
• http://indiankanoon.org/doc/8019/
• http://nhrc.nic.in/hract.htm
• http://nhrc.nic.in/HumanRightsAct.htm

The most difficult part of this post is deciding where to begin when describing the systemic human rights abuses that plague the Indian State. But given that the issue of religious freedom has been pretty popular lately, I will begin with a discussion of religious freedom in India. I will also discuss such issues as: censorship; education; displaced persons; and, violence perpetrated by the Border Security Forces.

Religious Freedom

India prides itself on possessing such a diverse group of religious group within its borders. Though dominated by the hindi faith, India is also home to christians, muslims, sikhs, buddhists, janists, zoroastrians, those who do not identify with organized religion and atheists: while it may be able to boast that all of these groups live side-by-side, it is unable to boast that they do so amicably. Multiple sources, from the United Nations to Amnesty International, report that across the country different religious minority groups, who are usually non-hindi, are subject to religiously-rooted violence and social discrimination. This, despite their being laws on the books, and the Indian Government bragging, that it is committed to the rights of each of its citizens.

Then there is Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code which states:

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment…which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Though this is supposed to be used only in situations in which it can be demonstrated that the offender caused offense with ‘deliberate and malicious’ intent. The first thing wrong with this law is that it denies people the right to be able to speak openly about religion. Think of atheists who naturally hold a position that is considered to be offensive to many people identify as being religious. It is one thing to go around hurling insults at people, and to use hurtful religious slurs while doing so should qualify as hate speech of some sort. But simply discussing religious traditions or challenging religious positions should never be punishable by prison. It violates rights to conscience and rights to freedom of expression. As Ezra Levant notes in his book Shake Down, there is no right that protects people from being offended.

Consider the following example of religious freedom in India provided by The Telegraph:

In 2006, Jaimala created a stir when she revealed that she had entered the sanctum sanctorum of Lord Ayappa in the Kerala temple in her youth and had touched the idol’s feet. Religious leaders and the temple authorities were highly affronted by Jaimala’s act because females in the age group of 10-50 years are forbidden from entering the temple.

After four years of investigation by the state law enforcement authorities into the alleged act of sacrilege, the actress and two others were booked under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for intentionally outraging religious sentiments.

Freedom of religion does exist in India: that is, if you happen to belong to the majority group in any given locale – and so long as you do not offend anyone’s religious sentiments when you say or write anything.

Censorship

In addition to the lack of religious freedom within India, the State has also clamped down on the freedom of the press, banning books – not to mention food and drink – that it finds offensive to certain religious sensibilities. As The Hindu writer Praveen Swami writes:

The contours of the bizarre theocratic dystopia that could replace the secular state are already evident. The state tells us we may not read the Satanic Verses, or Aubrey Menen’s irreverent retelling of the Ramayana; it chooses not to prosecute the vandals who block stores from stocking D.N. Jha’s masterful Holy Cow, James Laine’s history of Shivaji, or Paul Courtright’s explorations of oedipal undertones in Hindu mythology. 

It doesn’t end there: the state regulates, on god’s behalf, what we may eat or drink — witness the proliferation of bans on beef, and proscriptions on alcohol use in so-called holy cities. It ensures children pray in morning assemblies funded by public taxes, provides endowments for denomination schools and funds religious functions. It pays for prayers before state functions, and promotes pseudo-sciences like astrology. And, yes: it censors heretics, like M.F. Husain or Mr. Rushdie. 

Even the rule of law has been contracted-out to god’s agents. Last week, a self-appointed Sharia court issued orders to expel Christian priests from Jammu and Kashmir; neither the police, the judicial system nor political parties stepped in. In many north Indian States, local caste and religious tyrannies have brutally punished transgressions of religious laws.

Whether it is a fascinating book, a succulent steak, or even just being able to continue living in one’s home is not the prerogative of the individual, it is now the role of the Nanny State or the facade authority of sharia courts. Thus far only two areas of what it means to live in India have been discussed, and so far it is clear that within India the rights of religious freedom and freedom of conscience are under attack – with the complicity of the State.

Education

There are two different ways in which the education system in India is being adversely affected that I would like to discuss at this point. The first negative impact on education is the ongoing armed conflict between rebels and the armed forces. In their bloody feuding, these groups squeeze out civilian populations, often occupying schools and even hospitals for short- to long-term shelter. The conflict itself causes disruptions to the education system until such time that the fighting stops or moves on. But even then, there is often damage to the buildings such that they must first be repaired or re-built before they can be used again, which results in further delays to the education of the youth.

As alluded to above, as religious groups become dominate in certain areas, they control the social structure, and this is adversely affecting education as well. Some of these religious groups try to put distance between their communities and the outside world, including such things as education. This coupling of tribal religious beliefs with a lack of education results in the perpetuation of beliefs in magic/witchcraft. In the same article from The Hindu, Swami notes that “In 2010, the National Crime Records Bureau data show, a staggering 178 people were killed for practising witchcraft.” And as Trust Law notes, “Due to low literacy levels, lack of infrastructure and poverty, they have lived a relatively isolated life, where some communities believe in traditional healers and witchdoctors who advise poor, illiterate villagers to sacrifice young girls for wealth or good health.”

A recent example of the dangerous effects of an uneducated citizenry involves a young girl of 7 years named Lalita Tati, was walking home from a friend’s house when two men, Padam Sukku and Pignesh Kujur, abducted the girl, killed her and sacrificed her liver to the a hindu goddess. The two farmers hoped that the sacrifice would yield a good return in their harvest. The Mail Online also reports that it is believed Lalita was targeted because her father, Budhram Tati, was suspected of practicing black magic.

The State, if it is to take the well-being of its citizens seriously, not to mention the ability for India to remain competitive in this global marketplace, must start taking the education of its people more seriously, such that it ensures religious fanatics are not able to isolate large groups of people and convince them of such primitive and dangerous beliefs as referred to above. The government of India must go to greater lengths to ensure that the conflicts its armed forces engage in do not cross over into civilian zones, as this disrupts and endangers public life, not to mention its deleterious effects to social infrastructure like education and healthcare.

Displaced Persons

People are frequently forced from their land in India, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. For example, the anti-sikh riots of 1984 left countless people displaced, many of whom remain without home or property to this day. But in addition to people being displaced as the result of conflicts in the country, many others are displaced by the government, sometimes repeatedly, insofar as where they live is non-conducive to government plans for the land. If the government needs to build a new dam, the people who live in the area receive a meager dollop of money and are booted from their homes – left to wonder and try to relocate. Then there are all the people in India who are without the money required to not have to live on the streets, a.k.a. slums. If it weren’t bad enough that so many millions of people are reduced to such abject poverty and unhygienic living conditions, these slum-dwellers also live in uncertainty as to when the next government bulldozers will plow through their homes in the name of civic planning.

If the Indian Government really were serious about such things as human rights, it would be doing everything in its power to raise the standard of living for all citizens, such that no one would ever have to be reduced to living in a slum; one also wouldn’t have to live in fear of their home being torn down by their government.

Violence Perpetrated by the Border Security Forces

One of the most common human rights complaints that I cam across in my research involved the humanitarian abuses of India’s Border Security Forces (BSF). There are reports upon reports of the BSF routinely engaging in such inhumane activities as kidnappings, mass executions, indiscriminate violence, digging mass graves, and extra-judicial torture and killing. A response of the Indian Government to these complaints was to take the BSF’s live ammunition and replace it with rubber bullets, which was successful in reducing the number of murders, but not the amount of violence being committed by these thugs.

Below you can find a video of this brutality in action, shot on January 16, 2012 and made available by the Asian Human Rights Watch. I warn you in advance, however: the footage below is extremely graphic and particularly sensitive readers may just want to take my word that the behaviour exhibited by the BSF is inexcusable and deplorable.

This is made all the more problematic when you consider Section 197 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure:

197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.

1. When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

• in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
• in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 1[ Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted.

2. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

Members of the BSF are essentially able to act with impunity when discharging their official duties. This means these persons are protected from prosecution and do not have to cooperate with inquiries or investigations into the abuses in different areas.

How can India seriously consider itself to have a positive human rights record when the members of its military, who operate within the borders of the country, are able to kill citizens and non-citizens alike and never have to be accountable to anyone for the horrible things they have done?

The Irony of it All

Jay Leno told a joke featuring Mitt Romney and the Golden Tempe of the sikh religion. A sikh in California responded by suing Leno because he found the joke to be offensive. To this thin-skinned imp I would say only that no rights protect you from being offended: you can choose to either grow up and understand that not everyone has to share your system of belief, nor do they have to respect it (though they have to respect your right to believe in whatever nonsense you like) or you can be smart about your emotional shortcomings and just keep the television turned off.

As for the Indian authorities who found Leno's joke to be offensive and have called for Leno and others to censor themselves, or for the state to censor them if they will not, I say, with all due respect, to go fuck yourselves. I don't care that you were offended. There is a lot of work that must be done within your own borders insofar as respecting the human rights of all citizens is concerned; so much work in fact that you have absolutely no business telling the rest of the world how they should be conducting their affairs. Not to mention two other problems with the Indian Government on this issue:

• First, the Indian Government, like so many individuals and organizations these days, needs to be given a lesson as to what religious freedom means: it does not mean this or that religious group has the right to not be offended - it means only that they have the right to believe what they want without being persecuted for it.
• Second, in expecting other countries to yield to your demands, you expect nothing less than for these countries to hand over their sovereignty to your obvious dictatorial, totalitarian regime.

Jay Leno is a funny guy, and nothing that the Indian Government or disgruntled and easily offended sikhs do should be able to curtail his or any other person's freedom of expression. To this sikh and the Indian Government, I would like to close by reminding you of the immortal words of Demetri Martin (in the video below, go to 2:29 to watch him tell this joke). Of throwing stones, Martin says:

There's a saying that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Okay. How about nobody should throw stones? That's crappy behaviour. My policy is: no stone throwing regardless of housing situation.

Related articles

• Jay Leno Sued Over Sikh Mitt Romney Joke (thehollywoodgossip.com)
• Sikhs Hate Jay Leno (humor.gunaxin.com)
• Jay Leno case: India summons US diplomat (ibnlive.in.com)
• Jay Leno Sued For Telling Sikh Religion Joke, Lawsuit Likely To Be Thrown Out Of Court (inquisitr.com)
• Jay Leno sued over Golden Temple remark (ibnlive.in.com)
• India objects to Jay Leno’s remarks, US defends (ibnlive.in.com)
• -Sikh’s Sue Leno and NBC Over Romney Joke (answersforthefaith.com)
• Indian Sikhs less than amused by Jay Leno joke (thehimalayantimes.com)
• Jay Leno angers Sikh community with jibe (lilianisabelsmit.wordpress.com)
• Sikhs Sue Leno Over Joke Involving Sacred Temple (jonathanturley.org)