Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq and many others live under death threats for expressing certain ideas as they offended a group of people. Thus, the question arises, should freedom of ex-pression include a right to offend? I come across people, in print and conversations, say "I support freedom of ex-pression. But we should not hurt others' sentiments", as if it is self-evident. This assertion is vague on a couple of levels. What constitutes offence and what must be the punishment for it? While the first is considered in a few discussions, the second is ignored as people start picking on the supposed flaws in those offensive arguments ignoring the death threats.
A little thought reveals that there is no objective way to define "offensive views". There are places in contemporary world where it hurts sentiments even if others' houses of worship contain idols. They destroy idols; remember Buddha in
Further, just because somebody states an opinion that is contrary to mainstream opinion, does that justify killing him/her? Doesn't this mean if/when a majority for this contrarian opinion forms in a different time/space the mainstream people should be killed? The pre-requisite for rational discussion is an environment where ex-pression of any idea is not threatened with violence/death. If violence/death threats are the answers to contrarian opinions, then stop pretending that one is ready to discuss. These pseudo discussions offer no real choice; they only say, "Accept my point voluntarily, or else I will kill you"
Freedom of ex-pression without a right to offend is an oxymoron. When death/violence are alternatives to speaking out what one thinks, the virus spreads in the society, resulting in pretension on many levels. Individuals suffer because of that. Zakir Naik, for example, talks of women being raped in US, citing its' own data. The data from US, and the west, in general is very reliable. How reliable is the data from “conservative" societies on these issues? Does anybody need convincing that semi-rapes in conservative societies turn into consensual sex as victims do not want to lose "honor"? What percent of rapes are actually reported in such societies? I know around ten instances of pre/extra-marital affairs/flings. How many of these will find their way into official statistics if a survey is conducted?
Taslima Nasreen and others may be bad writers and their arguments may lack logic. However, they have the right to say what they want to say. If one has better arguments, let's hear them, not threats. Obviously, it is the individual's choice to support killing such "offensive" people. However, this will result in a thought-censored world, where more and more ideas, and actions, will be categorized as "offensive" and more (surely we or our offspring among them) will be killed/punished. God, of course, is great. He grants us everything we ask for. When our hand, leg, or neck is at the receiving end of a sword and we pray "God, please save me". S/he would only say, "But you asked for it, Mate".
—————————————————————————————————
These issues, among others, are well argued by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a beautiful woman on many levels. The reader can get to know her better through various videos posted on youtube and google. She is one of the most important persons of our age, in my opinion.
I haven”t read Rushdie’’s Satanic Verses or Taslima’’s Lajja; therefore, there is no question me defending Rushdie or Taslima. What I am defending there was their right to express what they think. If I write something which somebody thinks is offensive to them, I expect them not to buy my book or read it; not come and kill me. If you are saying everybody who is offended by something you say can come and kill you, well that is your prerogative. I am just saying that sooner or later you will be at the receiving end. Government is supposed to protect freedom of expression in their land; so I support that. Whether they are suckers or not is subjective. I don”t know whether she is a great writer. I don”t see why if she is not a great writer, we should go and kill her. We write what we want to write and expect protection from attacks; it is our wish. Same applies to them.
dear sarath…a gifted person indeed you are,this is my first entry into your blogs….keep writing!however,..why do i feel that you are defending people like taslima…or i am mistaken! why on world had she to write ofensive language to hurt religious sentiments…or for that matter salman rushdie?…..why are they being given so much Govt protection…..they are suckers(forgive my language pls)….taslima wasting India’’s resources by staying here….she is not a great writer by any regard…what was the need for salman rushdie to write what he wrote……..he wrote what he wished,so the people also have to react as they did!
i did see her video on youtube. Brave gal that one. Also see Wafa Sultan on youtube.
Thanks a ton for that link, VT. I read a few more of his articles and thoroughly enjoyed them. It was a pleasure. Yeah, I read a blog on iland too hating Taslima for being a bad writer. I was so infuriated; can anything be more irrelevant to the issue? I didn”t bother commenting out there. It just seemed like a different world. Anyway, it is nice to meet a guy (in fact 2, thanks to your link) who, I think, understands freedom of expression as it should be. We need the numbers swelling, and fast. Every drop counts for a lot. At least, we can delay some deaths/harrassments, if we keep talking
Having said that, let me repeat, I think we still have very long way to go. We are still a very young country (geographically, largely because of the Brits) and complex (culturally) too. The East Indian Brahmin eats meat and considers fish sacred, and many other Brahmins think being a vegetarian a unessential qualification for being a Brahman- to quote a very small example. We never know what offends whom and we there is absolutely nothing an artists can do if he/she wants to please all; hence the importance of freedom to offend. Sadly, it is still wishful thinking for fools like us (at least for me, it is). But I choose to stand on your side. In any case, there are too many cultural clashes happening in India as of now, as Naipaul said; India is a country of ”a Million Mutinies Now.”
I guess the latest Delhi HC judge made a smart move by quoting Picasso in his judgement favouring MF. that “Art is never chaste. …. art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not art.”
Aren’t the double standards shocking? The Hindutva guys love Tasleema nasreen and hate MF Hussain. Why? They both committed the same ‘crime’. Isn’t it? They offended religions sentiments, though their art. The ‘non-religious’ Communists throw Tasleema out. The Mullas kill and fume over Satanic Verses. The Desi Christists hate Dan Brawn for Da Vici Code, surprisingly; the predominantly Christian West never had any problems with Dan. (On top of that some ‘well-read’ people try to justify their hating of Tasleema, or Dan in the garb of her being a ‘bad writers’. I don’t even know who is a ‘good’ writer.) Should ‘bad’ artists be punished to death? It seems so.
Wow! What a post! Maza aa gaya. I guess this overall thought is about half-a-Century-too-early, even for the ‘English Speaking Urban Indian Middle Class’. Like it or not, we are still waayy too Victorian and prudish. Do read an interesting post by my friend (he has stopped bloggin on iLand now)- but do read this one - http://ithinkoffensivestuff.rediffiland.com/blogs/2007/05/20/How-the-ban-you-ask-for-will-come-and-bite-you-in.html
Nadira, I fully concur with your views. However, I posted a fuller explanation on my “right to offend” in the context of the evolution of rights and duties of human beings in societies. Maybe, that will clear up a few things
No, i do not support governemnts (and i guess you mean those that run the state as per their interpretations of the shariah ) that deem it okay to award the death penalty to those whom they consider as offenders to their faith. That is a barbaric way of going about things and an anachronism to say the least.
If a section of people get offended by what they write, it is because they choose to be offended. They could choose not to be offended by what they read and continue believing in what they believe or choose not to read what they think is offensive. But as I said, in a civilised society, we should not get carried away with our so- called individual rights to such an extent , that we start defending the “right to offend”. Put in practice , in everyday living, that would spell no amount of negativity and unrest all around. How long would we stoically put up with a neighbour who rained abuses on us every time we came face to face with each other . Would we be as supportive of the right to offend , if lewd remarks were passed at our daughters or wives by the neighbourhood street Romeos,every time they stepped out of the house?
Freedom of expression should be upheld and it would be quite wrong for an individual , a group of people, an organisation or the state to deem it okay to snuff out lives or otherwise “punish” , because what somebody believed in or expressed did not fit in with their idealogy or beliefs and this should apply to anyone who seek to gag voices not quite of their liking, whether it was the communist regime or the other dictatorships. Having said that, the right of expression is not the same as the right to offend. When we speak of ourselves as civilised human beings, it does endow on us the responsibility to be sensitive to what may disturb those around us. If the people , you have quoted , have written what they did with the intention of offending others, or creating mischief, then they cannot be lauded. But, that , i think, is not the case. They have just chosen to share their beliefs, ideas and experiences.
We can also think in it in dis way…Everyone has got the right of expression and everyone has got the right to live decnetly wid dignity as wel….
Again, none of ur right should infringe the right of ne other person….Say u ve d right to express ur thoughts but dat does not mean dat dis right should infringe upon the right of a person to live wid dignity n honour……..
By the way, to the rest, I am not dropping any of my words on this topic nor am I changing any motto. If others have similar questions on what is meant by rights and the role of the state and the individual etc vis-a-vis the right to offend, let me know. I will attempt to restate my stand in those terms.
I think this is getting ridiculous, Ice Candy. I am not sure there is any use going further. I am dropping it here. We will discuss somethhing else when that comes up.
See, now you have changed your motto from right to offend to right to non-violence…even if other party is non-violent, that will again not give the first party the right to offend, if they are offending then someone can surely find non-violent ways to shut him up…(i would prefer if you think it over again, what you are conveying and what you are trying to convey is totally different)
Of course, Ice Candy
In your house, in your classroom (if you are a teacher), in your table (if you are hosting a dinner), on your blog page etc you can say that s/he has no right to offend you and that s/he has to shut up and get away from your sight. However, you cannot go to his house, or his everything else and tell him to do all that. You can, of course, storm away from his place in protest if your request to stop offending you falls on deaf ears. All I am saying is that nobody has the right to use violence against this guy or kill him. As Vaibhav said, I think, it is insecurities that define the limits of tolerance. I personally think if people have well reasoned out ideas they would not be offended by every utterance that comes about on the news. However, I am against, whatever the insecurities, the use of violence and death threats against any person whatever his ideas, unless he threatens violence and death.
So ur freedom of expression may be same to you but as ice candy has rightly said dat limit on the freedom of expression so dat u r not offending nebdy else may b different for different people……
N dat is why sometimes de call it a war between different civilizations…….
Sometimes people react coz some other person has attacked their insecurities……something de r not very sure abt . Insecurity in way defines d limit of intolerance or tolerance of people……..
I dint mean dat it is a crime coz it is an emotive issue…..itz just dat passions run so high on it dat people start considering it as a crime……
Now wat u consider as a crime or not a crime, depends on ur culture…….
I mean people dese days have got so many other reasons to feel passionate abt dat religion doesnt have ne relevance dese days for many people…….
Take dis in light of d fact dat people used to visit temples, churches, etc very frequently 10-15 years bak but dese days de dunt have time to do it…..I mean to say dat religion has taken a back seat for the many people n esp where development has taken place more……
In light of dis faact u can find relationship between the stage of development of a country and the intolerance of d people( or to d degree to which de support degree of freedom). In fact for many europeans esp nordic countries…those cartoons of Prophet Mohammed were not an issue but for people in other country…it was an issue…
even if i dont raise my fist, i”ll still ask him to shut up and not offend me, he has to right to offend me
Well, Ice Candy. That is exactly what I meant by “right to offend”. If I think somebody is offending me I don”t have the right to kick him or kill him or forcefully paste his mouth shut, neither will I approve anybody else doing the same if s/he thinks s/he can do all that. All I can do is not communicate with him, if I am publisher not publish his views, if I have the right to decide speakers at a get together, not invite him, and if anybody asks me (or in my forum), tell them that I consider his views very offensive and not based on facts. I don”t have the right to kill him or kick him. This in essence is what I meant by the “right to offend” of that guy who is offending me. We can keep arguing about semantics. But the stand doesn”t seem to be too different. Does it? Let me know if you would anything else to stop a guy who is offending you.
nope, and its got nothing to do with a right to offend, i don”t believe in being the first one to raise my fist…
When something can be proven to be a lie, there is no argument, Mate. Even if I utter the truth, tempers will rise in many cases, and further many times the evidence is not conclusive and any stand can be defended based on how each individual analyzes the evidence. Let”’’s stop beating around the bush. You can state your answer and we can agree to disagree and move on to the next topic whenever that comes up. “If I am offended by what anybody says or I think he is incorrect or lying, will I have your support to go kick or kill him?” I have given my answer in the post.
One has to be responsible enough before uttering words causing offense/displeasure…he can”t be given a 100% freedom to utter anything, how can he be alone the judge that what he is saying is correct and others wrong, if that is the case, he should keep it in his private thoughts, once out, it is his responsibility to soothe any tempers which arise out of his words…why should he be allowed to offend anyone when all he is uttering is incorrect? and yes lies offend people…
So Ice Candy, do you think if in the subjective opinion of the listener if I am causing offense, he can threaten me with violence or death? Of course, it is subjective. What I think is displeasure may be offense to him. What you choose to call offense, the speaker himself may choose to call displeasure. Are we going to play around with these words as the speaker gets kicked and killed? Many times when I say something, I know I am offending somebody and causing displeasure to somebody else. It is primarily decided in the mind of the listener. The same words can mean different feelings to different individuals. As I said in the blog, of course you can choose to kill/kick people for causing what you think is offense, but it will only result in more people getting killed and kicked for what you think is only displeasure.
Sarath, I am not sure what example you are talking about..In your own words you agree offend means to hurt, obviously words can never physically harm anyone…and thats what I have been pointing put all along, you have the full right to cause displeasure through your words, no one kills when its just displeasure, i”ll be killed if I have hurt anyone..offense is one step higher than displeasure and of course its a subjective opinion of the listener, but even then you can”t have intentions of offense, you can only have intentions of displeasure…i think i am over-repeating myself, so i think i”ll put an end to the discussion and call it a difference of opinion
Vaibhav, you say Holocaust denial is a crime because it is an emotive issue to so many. The same can be argued for prophethood of Muhammad or Jesus being the “son of God” etc where many people kill others. Just because it is an emotive issue, I don”t think, it justifies classifying it as a crime. The question is only whether it is true or false. The conclusions on any issue are subjective to the individual, based on how much proof s/he considers definitive and how s/he analyzes the issue, and what sources s/he finds reliable. And I did not read “Satanic verses”. And I agree with most points stated by gman. Taking violence lying down only increases its” occurrence and soon we will reach a point of no return.
Ice Candy, we know what things mean. Offend only means causing deep resentment, hurt feelings etc which may or may not be intentional. No physical harm. And we have an example in your own comments section now where things go when hurting sentiments question comes up. I will talk whatever I think is right and reasonable, irrespective of whether anybody thinks it is nonsense, or if anybody”’’s sentiments are hurt, or if anybody thinks my logic is flawed, or anybody is offended, as long as I have the freedom to express my thoughts. If given a chance, anybody who wants to stop you from talking, or kill or use violence, will just say, you are causing them offense and not displeasure. And the “understanding” among us we will go on to use a different word than displeasure to justify it. Besides, not all opinions, for example atheism or theism can be given explanation or proofs, and what if others are “offended”, and not “displeasured” by that opinion?
Ice Candy, I did not say “right to hurt”, only “right to offend”. This invalidates the yelling fire in a crowded theater metaphor. It is true that spreading lies can be declared a crime. However, spreading lies is an intention. If one can prove that that is the intention, it is punishable, similar to cheating in business deals. However, what if that is not the intention? In the case of holocaust, we know the records can be falsified. We analyze stuff by cross-referencing and physical evidence to convince ourselves of a historical fact. Therefore, when I start my investigation, I must have the right to make my conclusions independent of external factors based solely on evidence. I am sure we agree on this. You can allege that I am lying and if you can prove that I can be tried for that. For example, India has been fed the status as a victim on the kashmir issue. The same feeling is fed on kashmir muslims with India as oppressor –>
by Pakistan. Without going into the truth and falsehood of either stand, a researcher should have the right to draw his own conclusions from his study even if it offends or is emotive to many in India or Kashmiri muslims. And yes, we are responsible for our words and we must articulate our reasons for a stand. But the issue must only be whether I am speaking the truth or not. Not whether I am offending somebody or not. Holocaust denial, I understand, is a very sensitive topic like many others. Further, I am not denying it. I am only saying if I research for evidence and find that it did not happen, I should have the right to say so irrespective of the offense anybody may take. And then there are absolutely subjective issues such as God, prophet etc where seeking proof is redundant. The point is, I think, we must only make lying (if it can be proved as an intention) a crime, not offending.
The correct word for you post is Right to cause displeasure because offend itself meants hurt…if you have done ur research and then you give ur findings to the world, you are only educating the world, thats ur sole intention, now people will get displeased and offended in that case, and if they will demand explanation, you have to provide it, by that your are removing the displeasure and offense ur words have caused, in turn it means u do not have the right to offend, you”ll work to reduce the offend, when given a chance…not with any other freedom, you don”t work to reduce ur expression…if not given a chance to explain, it simply means ur freedom of expression is denied…you right to offend is immaterial in this case…first you need to have the right to cause displeasure…
—> The saddest part is that in this competitive radicalisation the voices of reason have been suppressed and middle ground squeezed. The Deobandis are now trying to recreate this middle ground by going anti-extremism which is a good step but it has to be nurtured and sustained over decades to bring back the middle ground. Only once this middle ground has been recreated can we have true Freedom of speech and right to offend “This middle ground has to be created for all aspects of society political economic and religious only then can we truly have meaningful freedom of speech and right to offend will be redundant concept….Gman
Hi Sarath, Again a very thought provoking post. Before I venture to comment on freedom of speech vis a vis the right to offend it would be relevant to understand the rise of intolerance and death of “middle ground “. It’s the way the societies have evolved. The concept of religious blasphemy was first evolved by Islam. It was used as a tool to subjugate masses for political purposes. The Catholic Church used the same to suppress breakaway factions and “free voices” Hindu intolerance or radicalisation that we see today has evolved as a natural consequence of two factors, one the oppression of weaker sections of Hindus and second the militancy of Islam and Christianity. Look at recent history of communal violence wherever till the time Hindus were at receiving end, the communal violence was recurring feature Once there was retaliation there were no repeat of communal violence its well documented . ——->
Holocaust denial is a crime coz it is an emotive issue for many….Passions run very high wenever this issue is raised……I give respect to every religion but difference comes coz of the way people interpret dem, be it Islam, Hinduism, christianity etc……
As far as opinion on gud writers or bad writers is concerned, u r right dat it can vary from person to person…..
Salman Rushdie is famous for only Satanic verses…….
First, crime is not subjective. When you are on a land and it is a crime to deny holocaust by the law of the land, it is a crime, same way blasphemy, apostasy laws of Islam. However, the point of contention is whether we should define that as a crime. We have every right to discuss that as long as we have freedom of speech. Secondly, I can turn the question back to you, why is holocaust denial a crime? why is denying that Gandhi ever existed a crime, or Einstein. You can call me a liar, mad etc and choose not to entertain me as my claims are not based on sound data or reasoning. Further, when I start thinking of a question, I should think of it without any coersion. So when I consider the holocaust question, I must have the option open to conclude that it did not happen (or vice versa) after examining my data and sources. I think that is obvious. For the record, I never considered the holocaust question and I don”t know much of the issue.
And it is not my opinion that Rushdie or Nasreen are bad writers
I was just saying it might be anybody’’s opinion that they are bad writers or that they have bad logic, but that doesn”t justify killing them or threatening. I did not read Nasreen, and I read one book of Rushdie which didn”t really impress me a lot. but that’’s a non-issue here for me. It is true that hindu, sikhs, and christian groups are also intolerant, and they need to be fought out. However, as a priority Islam for me is the biggest threat as it is the only group that governs so many countries and is intolerant as a government. The other groups are intolerant. But they are fringe groups and are not governing any country (to my knowledge). Most christian majority countries are secular. Not so muslim majority countries. And Ice Candy, there are 3-4 issues in your short comment 
–>
Thanks, JACOG. Offense is a subjective thing. I don”t think we will get a situation where nobody takes offense. What some people might describe as provocative ideas, others call as offensive. What some call lateral thinking, others may call attention seeking. Vaibhav, everything is a subjective topic. As I said in the post, anybody can choose to support killing others for holding “offensive ideas”. I am just saying the consequence of that kind of behavior is a more intolerant world. It is up to the reader if s/he finds my argument valid and what stand s/he takes. It might be true that people can use their discretion more. However, discretion (presence or it’’s lack) can be used to choose friends, decide whether to publish the author’’s material or not if you have the right, or decide whether to listen out the author, or entertain him as a guest etc. Lack of discretion (which in itself is subjective) cannot be a justification for violence and killing.
defend ur Holocaust denial claim, why it should not be a crime to deny Holocaust?
Dis is a subjective topic….. Der r certain sections who r very intolerant of ne adverse opinions of der nething..be it religion or culture….People here ve commented upon the religious intolerance of mainly muslims but dis wd b applicable to some hindu grps , christians and sikhs as well….
I m a big supporter of freedom of expression but yeah der r certain circumstances in which people can use der discretion more……
I wd like to counter one statement from u…..tasleema nasreen, rushdie are not bad writers…….
Few months back many of us got an e-mail asking to endorse a petition in support of a second term of presidency for Dr. Kalam. We signed it. But we never knew its fate or where it lead to ultimately. In this age of strong and widespread electronic media, mass support in favour of those protagonists could be arranged in similar fashion. But that drive has to have its validity to be really productive. One fine day, we would find that right to offend has been already established, and hopefully by that time the need to offend would come down too. Let me know if I’ve not understood something properly……… Very good post, as always
When just a cry asking for some changes in the prevailing undesirable & unscientific customs & beliefs drives the supporters of those customs to award death to the protagonist on the guise of their sentiments being hurt, what could be their reaction to the people justifying “right to offend vis-à-vis right to expression” !! To them, won’t it appear like we are asking for a license to offend regularly when they are not tolerating even one offense (“offense” as per their judgement). Under the circumstances, would it help faster if supporters of the so called “offending” person/leader come forward in masses and openly air their views in support of the cause. Although normally silent, a significant number of people feels for and support the cause these protagonists fight for. A medium of formal endorsement is however lacking.
Nandita, there is a major difference between Islamic intolerance and Hindu/Christian/Judeo intolerance. The former is primarily institutionalized. That is the intolerance comes from major governments, not fringe groups alone. As I pointed out in an earlier article, some countries kill for apostasy (these are not fringe groups, but government and one that openly justifies it). There are other laws like dhimmi etc. There are some problems with other religions, but their governments are secular. Their intolerance comes from independent groups outside the constituition. This is a distinction of immense importance. Ibn Warraq is a pakistani apostate. Irshad Manji is a prominent Canadian lesbian muslim. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Somalian muslim who underwent genetic mutiliation as a child and escaped a forced marriage. She is an apostate. You can read about them on wikipedia and watch videos on youtube/google.
Amit, I have not yet seen Khuda Ke Liye. I might see it soon. I don”t want to talk about what you meant by your first comment too much. However, I want to make a point which I think is valid irrespective of the movie. For example, if I tried to poison somebody and am caught, I will be tortured. For somebody who comes into the picture and sees only the torture, not knowing about my attempt to kill, it will look mightily unjust that I am being tortured by 4-5 people and tied down. As you said often, people get what they deserve. About point 2, all religions came along with a view to unite all mankind without differences. All they did was create a new religion and new group to fight with. Religions were governing systems earlier. They are not now. So they are redundant on a practical level and will not survive, in my opinion. If we still want a new religion, we have it - freedom and human rights
Sarath,though I fully agree with u when u say,”Islam today is the biggest challenge”,Hindus too are quite intolerant as uve rightly pointed out..think of the treatment M.F.Husain has received in India at the hands of hindu fundamentalists…India of course faces the biggest challenge frm Hindu grps,then comes Muslim fanatics and Sikh Khalistanis..
Interestingly,in a related vein…the painter Raja Ravi Verma faced the kind of fanaticism abt a 100 yrs back for painting Hindu goddesses tht Husain today is facing…
Sarath would u mind telling me a little abt Ibn Warraq,Irshad Manji and Ayaan Hirsi Ali..?
Just 2 quick points with my aching finger- 1. Have you seen KHUDA KE LIYE. Not that it is great cinema but that it gives quite a perspective on the ethos and how they developed. And 2, Cant we have a brand new religion ? The world has always had a new religion every 1000- 2000 years, and now i think it is high time to have one for the present reality, data and understandings.
Thanks, Nandita and Ice Candy. About the title suggestion, Ice Candy, I actually meant to deal with freedom of expression (or the right to offend) independent of religion. In fact, the sentence I used “we should not hurt the sentiments of others” was repeated to me many times by Hindu-borns, not muslims. However, obviously the major examples which we can find these days with regard to this topic center around Islam. Therefore, it might look like I am talking only of Islam. But I am for the right to offend in all aspects. For example, Holocaust denial is a crime in 13 European countries (of course not a capital crime). I am against this. Obviously, this is a denial of the freedom of expression which includes the right to offend. However, I hold Islam is the biggest challenge in this direction.
Change the title to “Freedom of Expression with respect to Islam” or “The Right to Offend with respect to Islam” :))
Very thought provoking and very well handled Sarath..!!
Freedom of speech and expression hve always threatened the majority and the powers tht be…they are afraid of being exposed for what they are…
Anybody who has a mind of her own has alwez sown insecurity in the minds of the majority…this insecurity has bred high levels of intolerance in our society..the result,killings and mindless violence.
Most ppl are afraid to think Sarath…they find it safe and easy to follow the majority…
We in India of course are wht we are because of our narrow outlook…education is broadening our vision but only very slowly…
Thnx for the post.