K.V. Seetharamaiah
Suranya, daughter of Mani Shankar Aiyar, has proved that she is true to her father. If she has opposed the Ram Mandir consecration, she could have been counted one among many many people who are opposed to the Ayodhya Ram Mandir. She has registered her protest against the temple in a different way. She has allegedly observed 3-day fast to register her opposition to the temple. Fasting is undertaken in political circles urging the government to concede their demands by the people opposed to some policies and programmes of the government. Fasting is a religious practice to appease the God praying for fulfilment of their desire. If the intention of Suranya had been to draw the attention of the government or organizers of the event going ahead with their plan to inaugurate the temple, she would have sat in a public place and observed fasting. Since she did not observe fasting in public place, nobody could take note of it. She wanted publicity too. Therefore she revealed that she fasted in protest against Ram Mandir consecration ceremony. It cannot be a fasting for pleasing the God also because opposition to the temple of God can only incur the ‘wrath’ of God. Lord Ram is neither sympathetic to her self-imposed punishment nor furious at her opposition to the temple built for Him but certainly she has incurred the wrath of the residents of the colony where she resided. If she had not broken the secret that she observed fasting against Ram Mandir, it would not have been an issue at all. What anybody does within the four walls of his or her house does not matter. Acting upon the complaints lodged by the residents against Ram Mandir consecration by Suranya , a Resident’s Welfare Association (RWA) in Delhi has asked Mani Shankar Aiyar and his daughter to move out of the colony for going against Ram temple consecration. Suranya has denied that she is resident of the colony in South Delhi’s Jangpura. The ire of RWA that Mani Shankar Aiyer has not condemned the conduct of his daughter has come out. The RWA has asked her to move out to a colony where RWA can turn a blind eye to such hatred. While she has maintained that she is not the resident of the area from where notice has been received, she also says she had spent whole of her life there except for the time she studied abroad.
Had she gone abroad to learn hatred and undergo training to hurt the sentiments of people of the colony in the name of studies? Has she unlearnt, if at all she had the knowledge of, Indian culture and tradition abroad? Education should be supplemental to the knowledge for good cause, and should be for learning, not unlearning. Freedom of speech or expression is not absolute which has been made clear by the Supreme Court. Misuse of freedom of speech or expression disturbs the peace and tranquillity of the society and nation. Those who think of the freedom of speech or expression guaranteed by the Constitution must also take a look at the restrictions placed by the Constitution against promotion of enmity and hatred by the (mis)use of freedom of speech and expression.
There is a very thin line of demarcation between freedom of speech and expression used for correcting the society going in a wrong path and freedom of speech and expression used for creating unrest in the healthy society.
