It becomes slightly trying for a blog that stands for freedom of expression to defend religion in any way or on any count. Given the backdrop that most attacks on freedom of expression both in India (primarily from the Hindu right) and cross the world (primarily from the Islamic right) come from those steeped in religion. And, of course, it is ironical that an unrepentant atheist has to write all about it.
The other day there was a report in the Hindustan Times about the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) advocating the restriction of religious and spiritual television channels.
TRAI chairperson Nripendra Misra, in his letter to Information & Broadcasting Secretary Sushma Singh, said restricting religious and political organisations from running TV channels "will ensure the... medium is used for advancing public interest" and "for greater realisation of the common man's right to be informed fully and fairly". TRAl has recommended that such channels be phased out in three-four years.
What TRAI, in itself, says is true. Religion is surely a problem. Propagation of religion compounds problems. And in these days of trying times, we can surely do without more problems, and compounding of problems.
So what's wrong with this TRAI recommendation?
Firstly, it is none of TRAI's business. It's better stick to its brief and take care of our telecom travails. As it is, the authority has come a cropper in cracking down on pesky calls, for instance. I, for one, had to take four of these calls yesterday in spite of having registered with the National Do Not Cal (NDNC) for almost a year now. TRAI could also do well to direct its self-righteous indignation at the recent telecom scam instead of sticking its nose in a religious can of worms. Eeeks.
Secondly, cracking down on anything religion usually backfires. Nobody would know it better than the erstwhile Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Much of the public movement led by Boris Yeltsin in the dying days of the Soviet Union, in fact, was orchestrated by none other than the Church. You need to tackle religion with reason, not with armtwisting tactics.
Thirdly, the restriction becomes as good as a ban. Banning a divergent school of thought, this blog believes, is a bad idea. It is a bad idea for a number of reasons. It creates public resentment (which can certainly be avoided). And, banning anything pushes it underground. That makes it difficult to tackle the problem, if it is one. Seeds of resentment that grows underground cannot be weeded out. Like weeds, these forever keep growing underground. No matter how hard you try, it will keep growing.
Let these religious and spiritual channels stay.
One, of course, does not agree with their existence or the balderdash they espouse day in and out. But then, on count of freedom of expression, one has to stand by them. For that is what freedom of expression stands for. The watchword for this blog is a Voltarian statement: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to death, your right to say it".
