DC Edit | Politicians Must Mind Their Language & Behaviour
That politicians may feel so emboldened because they are members of the ruling party or combine is clear. The question is who is to rein them in
A Tamil Nadu politician, who was a senior minister in the Stalin Cabinet, delivered sexual innuendos freely in a hate speech against women of the Shaivite and Vaishnavite denominations. A legislator from the ruling BJP in Odisha spouted misogynistic comments on a woman leader of the Opposition BJD and went on to elaborate as she hit back. An MLA of the Shiv Sena, an alliance partner in Maharashtra, slapped a canteen staff at the MLA hostel because he was served stale food.
These are just three examples of the kind of crass behaviour that lowers political civility in various states. That politicians may feel so emboldened because they are members of the ruling party or combine is clear. The question is who is to rein them in. Of course, the Tamil Nadu minister lost his job, but the point that the high court, in taking suo motu notice of his vituperative speech on women and sex, noted was that all 124 complaints made against him to the police were closed.
The judge’s scathing attack on the impunity with which politicians are bringing their profession, avocation or avowedly honorary public service into disrepute can help only if political leaders occupying the highest position in the party and/or government pulls these people up and dismisses them from posts that seem to empower their crass behaviour or speech. But it would take strong political will to ensure members who cross the red line between civility and abuse of freedom of speech are disciplined by the party first.
The point is the moment a politician sees a microphone he feels obliged to shoot his mouth off. This foot-in-the-mouth disease triggered by the presence of cameras and microphones has led hundreds of politicians into trouble, with some even losing their positions of power or, in rare cases, their careers. While acrimony can lead to politicians taking extreme positions on issues, what they tend to lose sight of in India is it is possible to say these things without abandoning good manners.
What the judge said is most pertinent as he hit the nail on the head saying, “Politicians think that freedom of speech under Article 19 is an absolute right. And they think only the sky is the limit.” Whatever is said might not satisfy all sections of the country’s 146 crore people. The least the netas can do is keep within the boundaries of decency. But the record suggests that many of them are hardly the type who can hide their male chauvinism.
The police cannot be seen acting as judge and jury and dismiss the complaints as it did in all the 124 FIRs filed against the then Tamil Nadu minister. It is up to the courts to decide on these matters, particularly regarding hate speeches that may cause disaffection among communities, but the cases barely reach them as complaints are disposed of by the police.
It is all too apparent that politicians in power use the system to escape after making the mistake of thinking their gift of the gab comes with eternal wisdom. Even those who raise their hand against ordinary people somehow manage to get out of trouble. The record speaks for itself in over 100 cases of hate speech delivered or physical misbehaviour going without being dealt with firmly by party, government, police or courts.
